451. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183323 by Mitchell Gilks on May 21, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Well, my moral compass only points south when pain and sufferage is prevailant. That being said, surely more suffering is delivered on the world (something both Harris and Dawkins suggest, and I think is reasonable) from the killing of an adult cow, than to the aborting of even a fully developed fetus. Being a vegan this argument doesn't readily convince me, though if you don't have a problem with the former than I see no rational grounds to contest the latter (and no, belief in some metaphysical specialness and difference between humans and other animals, or a magic human soul are not rational grounds).

I am won over by the suffering calculus. Surely it would generate more suffering in the long run for the greatest number of people to force a child on the world that is unwanted, or perhaps mentally or physically malformed. I would even support the termination of significantly physically or mentally malformed infants within a few weeks after birth. Whether they live or die there will be suffering delivered upon the world, I just don't see how one can make an argument that quickly and humanely ending their lives shortly after they have begun would result in more overall suffering for the parties involved than decades of a difficult and and high mantainance life that results in accessive strain and hardship for the family involved.

My two cents.

452. In God's Name

Comment #183316 by Mitchell Gilks on May 21, 2008 at 8:53 pm

For Christ's sake what now! Waiting until you're married to have sex? There's going to be a lot of 30 second consummations going on I tell ya. Or interior design television programs.
One thing's for sure, no body's going to be having good sex.

Indeed, and if your new spouse is horrible in bed, what then? Not that you'd know, being a virgin...I guess. Also, there are some girls that look a lot better with cloths on, and when you see them naked for the first time, it's...not as you imagined.

Without some trials runs you are trapped. Who buys a car before taking it for a test drive, or even looking under the hood?

453. In God's Name

Comment #183299 by Mitchell Gilks on May 21, 2008 at 7:21 pm

The way you fix the muslim birth rate problem is the same way it has been slowed in every other country; the emansipation of women. Once women are nolonger resigned to being baby mechines, and given control over their own reproductive system, their birthrate will greatly reduce, and become analoguous to the birthrates of cultures with gender equity.

I think that the most important fight right now, is to fight for the emansipation of women in islam. I see it as the turning point.

Education, and gender equity in poverty stricken african, indian, and south american countries is also a way to ensure that more aid allowing the sustainance of more individuals doesn't result in a population growth, and thus doesn't improve the the average quality of life. Which may be impossible for as long as women are resigned to being baby mechines.

454. Mayor challenges pope during Genoa visit

Comment #182561 by Mitchell Gilks on May 20, 2008 at 1:35 pm

The current law seems reasonable to me. I thought that it was the case that political bills require secular justification. After they show their claims about abortion replacing contraception (though they are against that too, so it seems like a moot point coming from them) and other such absurd claims, to be just that, absurd. Then the legal system should just ignore their rants and ravings, until they want to start legislating people's preferences. How many people do you think I would need on my side to ban onions? Damn I hate them so much.

Also I don't understand the logic of allowing abortion for incest and rape. Isn't that punishing the child for the parents' crimes? Besides, if it was ok to abort incestuous children, then those that believe in bible creation would have to concede that humanity would never have gotten started. We're all the product of incest according to that fable. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with incestuous relationships between consenting adults.

455. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182231 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:39 pm

(*Sigh*) I think I'm done playing with you. I didn't realise you were a theist.

"1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice."

Who's choice was it that cows and humans would be different exactly?

(*rollseyes*).

Anyway, I've spent enough time on this. Ja-ne.

456. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182227 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:35 pm

142. Comment #182226 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Yes I perfectly appreciate this point. This does not make these actions right as these are obviously violations of personal freedom. I mean this must be implicitly obvious. That's like saying if you don't get caught it isn't a crime.

Then you concede that someone's obliviousness to their exploitation doesn't mean it is morally acceptable? So your point that it is ok to exploit cows because they can't grasp the fact that they are being exploited is disgarded?

457. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182225 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:29 pm

139. Comment #182223 by aleprechaunist

As long as you appreciate that you do so arbitrarily, and without rational justification. Then I can't stop you. That was a compelling enough reason for me. It distressed me that specieism is analguous to racism.

458. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182224 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:27 pm

What "kind" of self-awareness. I didn't know there were kinds. Please explain, it sounds like you are just inventing this.

I meant the fact that we have the capacities are arbitrary.

This is unintelligible. This is what arbitrary means http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary

459. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182221 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Date-rape doesn't necessarily cause harm. It doesn't necessarily cause physical harm, and if they don't find out about it, it doesn't necessarily cause mental harm. Taking naked pictures of children in provocative poses doesn't cause physical harm, and if they don't remember it, it won't cause mental harm.

I hope you appreciate this point. Swindling someone out of their time and money as religious charlatan's do does not cause physical harm, and if you never find out that it was a trick, it doesn't cause mental harm.

460. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182216 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:07 pm

83. Comment #182119 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Yes we do exploit cows but I was making the point that cows do not have the capacity to feel exploited and that is a distinction between cows and humans

Are you now retracting this statement? I'm confused.

Though you are also wrong, cows are self-aware, all the higher mammals are. As well as many bird species.

Though the fact that you concede the distinctions you draw are abitrary than refer to it as a "moot point" ignores that is exactly what I have set out to demonstrate. Now it falls on whether you feel fine being just as rationally justified drawing moral lines where you do as a racist.

That seems like you oppose the research. Sorry if that was not your point.

I do oppose the research, for the reasons I explicated.

461. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182209 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 11:48 am

ToCT, I am not going to respond to your strawman, and your false analogy. Ants can't speak, cows can suffer. You say they can't know they are being exploited, so then it must follow that it is okay to exploit the unaware, whether they are human or not. I don't know how you can't grasp the problem with you objection, it doesn't appreciate either of these points.

Perhaps that apology was disengenuous. I still don't think I blunt the entire blame for that misunderstanding, and I hope that Clydey doesn't think I do either.

I realised that you never concidered my point of objection, which was my very reason for suggesting that it is far safer to be tentative in our assertions.

Actually I never made an argument against this artical, I was imidately challenged on the basic premises of my position, and I had to defend animal rights in a general sense, I never got the opertunity to argue against the artical, the points you raised I merely pointed out were fallacious. I never suggested that I thought that using cows in that way was unquestionably wrong in all situations.

Personally I just think that it is a quick fix that could likely be solved by better appeals for human eggs, and more insentives to donate them. If all else failed I would be willing to consider eggs procured from wild animals, but not animals kept for the sole purpose of harvesting their eggs. This would be easier than procuring eggs from wild animals, but it would cause unnecessary suffering for the price of cost and time, which I don't think is at all right. While suffering all around, between humans and non-humans could be augmented by a compromise in this way, that is if we couldn't generate sufficient insentive for human donations, which I think is possible to achieve.

462. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182205 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 11:35 am

It plainly is fallacious Clydey. Suggesting feeling more morally responsible to the same species because it is just natural, and a result of how we evolved, is likely true, that doesn't change the fact that it in no way suggests that it how we should continue to behave, or that it is therefore justified to behave that way. That would be the naturalistic fallacy.

I have said that it is not rationally justifiable to draw such distinctions. I am also concerned that people unfortunately do, but human beings are generally really bad at reasoning. It requires formalized and rigorous application of logically sound and valid reason to draw proper inferences, it can't be done from the gut.

I think that it is quite clear that the distinctions are arbitrary. The sheer fact that none that withstand rational criticism can be forwarded, and it is just taken as a given and attempted to rationalise with those reasons that can't withstand scrutiny attest to this fact.

Now once people realise this they often imagine a slippy slop (which I am happy you didn't attempt to appeal to) where attempting augment as much suffering as possible equals to suffering for others, or the denial to exist for others. This is not the case, just as we can't feed every starving child doesn't imply that we shouldn't try to feed as many as reasonably possible (which I personally think is far more than is currently being fed), the fact that we can't prevent all animal suffering doesn't mean that we should not take part in, or attempt to prevent as much as reasonably possible.

Our very personal survival insures the sufferage of other animals and humans alike, but this isn't reasonably stopable, though many of it is preventable.

That is all I suggest. The specifics need to be weighed, I certaintly don't expect, or suggest anything that isn't reasonable, or would result in an equal or greater amount of suffering.

463. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182196 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 11:12 am

The point in offering it as an explanation is fairly obvious. I was searching for an explanation that did not rely on arbitrary distinctions. I felt it possible that we empathise more with our own species and seek to propagate it. What other reason is there to offer an explanation or than to try and explain?

Such an explanation merely moves the distinction from arbitrary to fallacious. Hardly a point worth making.

I apologize for misunderstanding, but since I was not the only one that did, I hope you will appreciate that it was not very clear what you meant.

464. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182193 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 11:08 am

122. Comment #182190 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I think that's the first time you have meant that. The first time you've been sincere and not evasive. It's good to see.

Actually that was my second time saying that, though by your saying "first time meaning it" you may have taken the first was as disengenuous.

If you note I haven't actually accused anyone of dogmaticism, or blockedness for not agreeing with me yet. Have you ever considered the possibility that your reasons pathetically fail to convince? Or that...heaven forbid...I'm right?

I do find it distressing that it is constantly asserted how unwilling I am to admit I am wrong with no appreciation for the possibility that I'm right, but instead the seeming certaintly of my falsehood.

I have in no way even hinted at any amount of certainty. In fact I claimed I was a skeptic, and remember by first post criticizing a certain someone for simply asserting that it would be impossible to object to this article, while I allotted a possibility that there was a secular reason to object to stem-cell research in general, I just haven't heard it yet.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I do think that people should be far more tentative in their assertions.

465. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182191 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 11:01 am

120. Comment #182184 by aleprechaunist

Morality evolves...

I agree, and I think that it is due time for another moral evolution.

466. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182188 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:57 am

What was you point in offering it though? Without a point of offering an explanation (as now was asked for or required) how was it not a complete non sequitur, and completely irrevelent to what was being discussed? It isn't my fault I thought you had a point.

I don't remember if I edited that in after, or it was originally there, but since I edit and mess with all of my posts and number of times before I leave them alone, I'll take your word on that. Though I hope you are not claiming that I edited it dishonestly to avoid something, because that isn't true. Though to be correct I didn't call you a social darwinist, I said you had fled there, meaning as cover.

Social Darwinism is a theory that competition among all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.[verification needed] The term draws upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, where competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through the survival of the fittest.

It clearly says that the term is derived from Darwin's theory of competition between individual organisms. Though I was wrong in calling it social darwinism, as they implies behaviour in a society, and other species (beyond perhaps pets) are not considered members of our society. I should have said something like "behavioural darwinism" or just plainly the naturalistic fallacy. Mea culpa.

467. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182178 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:39 am

115. Comment #182176 by hungarianelephant

I don't understand what you mean. I understand the reasoning, but I don't see how it applies. Please expaciate.

(*edit*) after reading it again, do you mean all because there is no discernable difference between species A and species B, and species Y and species Z. Doesn't mean that there isn't a discernable difference between species A and species Z?

If so then that is very true, but it holds no bearing on anything that I've said. My cut off points were as decribed in the high animals capable of sufferage and emotional desires. This is where my moral considerations begin, as outlined, and I don't claim that all species possess these, or that many species don't possess the qualities differently, but I am claiming that it isn't justified to extend moral considerations based on such a standard to humans but not non-humans. And that any other standard (because this is the basis for empathy, and emotional concern) is arbitraryily arrived at.

468. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182177 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:38 am

113. Comment #182174 by aleprechaunist

Appeal to the people fallacy. So would being a homosexual in the middle east, is it then therefore wrong to be a homosexual?

469. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182175 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:35 am

Clydey. I was not the only one that got that from what you say. I fail to see the revelance of even bring it up if not to say that justifies acting morally toward humans but not other animals? What was your point with that then?

I also find it incredably amusing that you said that I didn't to look up what "ad hominem" means. I said exactly what it means in english, and then you quote some definitions that in no way disagree with me, and ignore the fact that you were objecting the the emotive power of the term "social darwinism" and not actually a personal attack at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You can claim that I misunderstood your point about raising Darwinism as an explanation, though I was not the only one that understand you to be saying therefore our behaviour in that regard is justified. Please explain what you meant then?

I cannot be blamed for the misunderstanding. I'm willing to take your word that that wasn't your intent though. If you can explain what your intent actually was, it is your job to clarify your points.

470. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182168 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:21 am

Hungarianelephant.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

The line one draws at species is arbitrary, and often animals that are considered seperate species can interbreed. This is true of a great deal of insects. There is also controversy over what makes a species seperate. Some attempt to draw the line as genetic similarities, but this is not pragmatic enough, and is too difficult to determine, so generally biologists draw the distinction that populations that don't interbreed with other populations, not can't.

This explanation is free before I call you on your strawman. I did not suggest that no animal has any differences, I suggested that if you based you moral considerations on sufferage, and appreciation to a beings emotional desires to survive, there is absolutely no reason to draw a cut off line at humans. If you attempt to draw it at intelligence, the intelligences between some humans some animals actually overlap, and there is no static level among humans. Same with thresholds of pain, and cognitive ability.

My point was not that species have no decernable difference. It was there there is no difference that justifies moral considerations for some species on not others, if your moral considerations are based on what I explained mine are based on.

One is perfectly capable of basing their moral considerations on authority, metaphysical ideas, arbitrary opinion, or many other things. I just don't think that those foundations are rationally justifiable, and there are good arguments against them.

I hope I clarified.

471. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182164 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:11 am

Firstly, speak for yourself, I clearly do not think that it is acceptable to experiment on non-human animals. Have you not noticed that has been my objection? Also, as I clearly outlined, our survive instinct places other humans as far greater rivals to our genetic perpetuation than other species. This results in justifying immoral behaviour toward members of our our species equally, if not more so than other species. Only close relatives that share our genes are valued, not the entire species, as evolution does not favor species, but individuals.

Actually an ad hominem is litterally "to the person" and an ad hominem attack would be "a personal attack" though you now claim my faux pas was using emotive language.

What you described was social Darwinism, suggesting that we should behave based on Darwinian principles is social Darwinism. You clearly need to read what social Darwinism is. Because that is what you described. It is also an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy. All because something is natural, does not make it good. The best you can do is use Darwinism to describe why we irrationally favor humans over other animals, it in no way justifies continuing to do so. Just as you can appeal to nature as to why people are violent, or why there are rapist, that doesn't mean people shouldn't try to be non-violent, and not rape.

472. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182155 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:39 am

Also Darwinism surely doesn't insure survival of a species, it's actually quite bad at that. 99.8% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct, there is absolutely no reason to assume that following our instincts is a good way to survive, opposed to our intellect.

I'll take the intellect thanks.

Also I offered no ad hominem attacts. What as an ad hominem exactly (well towards you anyway, I did call TOCT an idiot)? Inaccurate in what way? What did I say about Darwinism that was inaccurate?

I do get that you extent your moral considerations to other humans but not other species. If you haven't noticed (which amazes me) I've been arguing how that isn't rationally justifiable the entire time.

473. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182150 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:25 am

You've fled into social Darwinism...which I find sad. I expected moral relativism...but wow. Also Darwinism favors individuals, not species. So the survival of the fittest ideal that you translate to other species is equally justified to translate to other human beings.

As survival mechines other species are not as harmful to the survival of our specific genes than members of our own species are. It would also be quite Darwinian to become a serial rapist, and attempt to impregnate as many women as possible.

There is an obvious reason why Dawkins and others argue fervantly against getting ones morals from Darwinism.

474. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182145 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:20 am

My claim was that there is no distinction that would justify a cut off point between humans and other higher animals capable of suffering and the desire to survive. I have reiterated this numerous times.

So clearly your reductio, although absurd, was in no way based on my reasoning.

You also of course in no way addressed my reductio. Your reasoning was that unless it can "feel exploited" it is ok to exploit it. I reduced this reasoning to the absurd. Either you think date rape is fine, and the exploitation of young children, or clearly you do not agree that it is morally okay to exploit those that are unaware that they are being exploited.

It is obviously, and clearly implicate that you believe that human being possess some metaphysical difference to every other animal that justifies rights and freedoms for them and no other animal. Please cut the crap, and demonstrate this implicate assumption.

475. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182140 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:12 am

Now you know why I've ignored you TOCT, you're an idiot. That isn't a reductio ad absurdum...learn what terms mean. A reductio ad absurdum takes the same line of reasoning and reduces it to the absurd. You have not taking my line of reason, you have merely created an absurd example, which is not the samething.

My reasoning involves my moral considerations which I have outlined, you are ignored my reasoning.

You also completely ignored my questions, and answer to your question to merely ask an irrelevent and idiotic question.

476. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182137 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:09 am

Humans are more complex than other animals in the area of abstract thought, and plastisity of the brain alone. Not in ability to suffer, or desire to survive. Mainy of our emotions in this area are lower brain functions, and developed in our ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago. There are none that I am aware of that are the result of complex abstract thought. This also continues to ignore that not all humans are equal in this regard, yet we allot equal rights and freedoms, so this clearly cannot be the standard by which we do that.

I am going to completely ignore you now, as you have every point I've made.

477. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182134 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:05 am

TOCT, I told you not to expect responses for points I've already addressed, or that I didn't feel worthy of response. So you should have expected this.

Since this point seems to mean so much to you I will ignore that I have addressed it (by asking you if you would be willing to harvest eggs against the will of human females, which of course went unanswered) to address it regardless. Now you seem to have switched it to whether they can "feel exploited" or not. A unconscious person cann't feel exploited. So is date rape perfectly fine? A child before a certain age cannot feel exploited, so would it be okay to exploit them as well?

I don't care whether someone can feel explioted, and unless you agree with my reductio ad absurdum (which I sincerely hope you don't) than neither do you. The fact that they can be exploited is the issue.

478. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182127 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 8:54 am

Hungarianelephant, my entire point and argument as been to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of cutting off ones moral considerations at the line of species, with zero cause that would universally justify equal rights for the human species but no other. As there is no equal quality of all human beings that other animals do not possess in some form as well. Saying humans are "more developed" (though I think different is more accurate) in some qualities ignores that so are people. There is no static and objective line of cut of that can be established, and no one here has even attempted to demonstrate that there is.

So this results in a logical inconsistency. If you are willing to say something is morally okay to preform on other animals, but not humans, then you are doing so without rational cause, and you are on no higher ground than someone cutting their considerations off at race, religion, country or any other arbitrary point.

479. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182118 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 8:42 am

Aleprechaunist, that unfortunately ignores that not all human beings aren't equal in cognitive ability. As I have outlined. The sheer fact is that people draw the line at our species, and entirely arbitrarily. Any appeal to emotional and intellectual ability is easily demonstrated false, those are clearly not the reason because they hold absolutely no bearing over the level of rights and freedoms allotted to individuals. The true reason is just an arbitrary line drawn at species, no more justifiable than one drawn at race, national, height or weight.

In any case, just suggesting that cognitive ability is the best quality is arbitrary, and doesn't equal a truism of objective betterness.

480. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182109 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 8:30 am

I also in no way agree with PETA, they are insane. I actually think they do far more harm for animals rights than the opposition, as they make everyone that is in favor of animal rights look insane. Anything that we may agree on is sheerly coincidental. They even openly support zoophila...

481. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182108 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 8:27 am

That was the one and only hypothetical I asked you, and it was to demonstrate what you continue to affirm, that they are unrealistic. It is just as unrealistic that my mother will need insolin.

A hypothetical requires situations, yet asking if you would be willing to do something for a human that would you for an non-human animal is void of situation, it is a general question, and asks about what you would be willing to do in the real world, not in a hypothetical situation.

Also you berate me for not agreeing that humans a metaphysicall different and just naturally deserve rights and freedoms when other animals do not without justifying this assertion.

You fail to understand that is the very unjustified assumption I have been challenging, and you have being failing to address. You just keep asserting that it is the case, and act all shocked that I won't agree without a demonstrating.

482. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182104 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 8:18 am

Clearly taking people against their will and doing anything to them, no matter how benign is not something that is compatible with a free society. I assumed you were in favor of a free society, mea culpa.

Nice quote mining, if you read in context I was arguing that they do not have any emotions and desires, which is what I said I base my moral considerations on. I did not then suggest a a calculus in which to decide a spectrum of allotted rights. Also for someone who has accepted that viruses aren't alive you sure don't mind continuing to use them as an argument.

Please explain your logic then, you appear to just be using it as an empty term of authority. You said that it couldn't be demonstrated, then how the hell is it a logical inference? Logical inferences can be demonstrated. Love is no biochemically different than eating vast amounts of chocolet, so I really don't hold it in a special regard as you do.

Also, saying "do you really think this, or that" is an argument from personal incredulity, all because you find something hard to believe for intuitive nonrational reasons is not reason to think it's not true. Evolution doesn't invent knew traits instantly, they are developemental, and gradual changes. To just expect that we have emotions that other animals lack assumes a leap that would be counter to the princples of evolution, and ignores the possibility that other animals may have emotionals that we lack.

Though all of this is irrelevent for the reasons I have outlined. Not all human beings have the same amount, or developement of emotions, and yet they are not allotted less rights and freedoms. Why not? Where is the consistency?

I am stunned that you are patting your self on the back for accepting that their is a controversy on whether viruses are alive or not. I didn't argue for this, it was a statement of fact that can be easily looked into. If you pat yourself on the back for accepting easily varified statement sof facts that I really don't think that demonstrates how open minded you are.

You have not even attempted to address any of my arguments, so I can't see how you can then claim I've been defeated.

Anyway, clearly this is a waste of time, and is going in circles, and it so often does. Unless your next post actually addresses my points, don't expect another reply.

483. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182086 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 7:54 am

Aleprechaunism. That misses the point, it merely reverses the situation, instead of trading non-human animals lives for human lives you suggest trading human lives for other animal's lives. This is of course equally objectionable for the same reasons.

I also never said that my objections were utilitarian, but moral, which is inherently emotionally in it's foundations. Though built from those emotional foundations it can be logically coherent.

484. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182083 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 7:50 am

I never condone animal testing. I admitted to hypocrisy in such a situation. Do you condone killing strangers?

I am not making hypotheticals, I am pointing out the inconsistency of your logic. Allowing for the killing and suffage of non-human animals while being against for it for humans. This is logically inconsistent, and you refuse to even attempt to justify it.

485. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182077 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 7:40 am

(*Sigh*)

I'm just going to ignore your ad hominems because they are irrelevent.

I never said that all animals are equal, I in fact stated the opposite, and I also never stated that I based my moral considerations on equality. Not all humans are equal, I think they deserve equals rights though, because deciding one quality is better than another is arbitrary.

If you cannot demonstrate something then it is merely an assertion. I hope you don't mind if I dismiss your unjustifiable assertions, that is something I tend to do as a skeptic.

I mentioned suffering, and desires to survive as my moral considerations, I did not suggest a emotion calculus that would place those with more developed emotions worthy of higher moral considerations. Because as I pointed out with intelligence and thresholds of pain that creates an absurdity where humans are allotted levels of rights also based on this.

I'm guessing you wouldn't be willing to test on unconscious humans against their desires, which was I thought clearly implied. So this is a logical inconsistency. Again, unless you can demonstrate, and justify this divergance, it is illogical, and and arbitrary.

This is usually the point where someone fleas into moral relativism, and tells me that they are just find with it being inconsistent and arbitrary. When reason fails, rationalisations come into play.

486. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182062 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 7:11 am

For the last time, ad hoc hypotheticals and invented situations are not a valid form of argument. Please reframe, and lets discuss the real world.

487. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182060 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 7:08 am

You are beginning to annoy me Clyder by your unwillingness to address anything that I've said, and you complete lack of understanding of a simple point. Yes I would chose my mother for the same reasons you would chose to kill the stranger's family before you own, and no I don't think that justifies using animals for testing anymore than you think that killing the stranger's family means that strangers deserver less rights and freedoms than people you know. I don't know how I can make this more clear, I even feel that explicating this point to this extent is insulting to your intelligence, but you demanded it.

Also I fully admit to being a hypocrit in that situation if it were to arise, as I'm sure you would if my ad hoc hypothetical were to arise. Fortunately ad hominem arguments are logically fallacious. Beyond being able to say "haha you're a hypocrit" pushing for this red harring in no way invalidates the veracity of anything that I've said.

I find it rather cute that you can dismiss the controversy on whether viruses are alive so easily because you think it helps your point. Demonstrate an emotion that humans have that no other animal has please. Though that wouldn't matter even if it were true, as then psychopathes and sociopathes, as well as other developmentally disabled individuals would also be denied rights and freedoms.

Again, and for the last time. You would be okay with killing unconscious people? Or doing similar experiments on unconscious people? You are entirely biased by an unjustified assumption that humans are metaphysically and fundementally different than other animals, it is this very assumption that I challenge. Understand? Asking hypotheticals that you would disagree to if it were humans and not other animals fundementally misses this point.

488. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182053 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:52 am

Thoughtoncommontoad, I have addressed the point you made that is worthy of dignifying with a response. If you insist on arguing non-points and absurdities without taking into consideration what I've said thus far, do not expect a response from me.

Also, the vary fact that you have made it clear that nothing I could say could convince you makes me less than interesting in even discussing it with you.

Also, learn what terms mean. You keep misusing terms. Non sequiturs do not logically follow. The statement you quote clearly does logically follow. If you disagree with what the statement says that doesn't make it a non sequitur.

489. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182050 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:49 am

Clydey, if you insist on evading my questions and points and continually assert then no constructive conversation can happen.

You desire to continue to do something without justifying it. If you believe the distinction you draw is justifiable then please justify it.

490. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182043 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:41 am

I have answered you question. I said that I accepted your answer to my hypothetical as my own. Do you not understand what I mean by this? I will quote you just in case.

I'd kill the stranger's family. I am a slave to logic, but at some point emotion takes over. Do the stranger's family have less right to live? No, of course not...

I'm sorry, but for someone who claims strict adherence to logic you fail to grasp mine still. Firstly, define desire. Clearly you are not using the word as I use it. Desire is an emotional and behavioural reaction to external stimuli. Viruses do not have a emotions, or behaviours, and it is questionable if they are even alive, based on the biological definition of life. Which is something that grows produces it's own food, and reproduces. They do not produce their own food, so there is argument about whether they are even alive. In any case they surely do not suffer.

What you are not understanding, and completely fail to address is that there is no fundemental difference between humans and other animals. So the questions you asked you should easily be able to answer yourself by asking youself if you would find that acceptable for human beings.

491. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182031 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:23 am

42. Comment #182027 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Yes that is elementary. It doesn't bother me else I would be a nihilist.

Then you are immune to appeal. How would being bothered by something make you a nihilist exactly?

492. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182028 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:14 am

Lol, Clyder. You have fled into absurdity. I can't convince lions and tigers on what to do, and they don't have a choice. We do.

All life is not equal. My moral considerations are built on the desires of the agents involved. The realisation of the universal evaluation of all higher animals, that to survive and survive well. Also, on whether or not they can suffer, and realise their suffering. Drawing lines are intelligence is of course not possible, some animals overlap some humans, and it would result in the absurdity of some humans having more rights and freedoms than others based on intelligence. All the evidence suggests that all the other higher animals can suffer to the same degree humans can, some perhaps more so. Then again not all humans have the same threshold for pain, drawing a line here would result in another absurdity.

I think you will find that you draw your moral considerations on similar ground. It is up to you to demonstrate a fundemental difference between humans and other higher mammals, and show why a racist isn't just as justified in drawing the line on his moral considerations at race as you do species without objective cause.

Also you answered your own question. That was one of the points of my hypothetical, the second point was to demonstrate that ad hoc hypotheticals are not rationally applicable to the real world.

493. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182024 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:05 am

38. Comment #182016 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Fully concious was lazy use of language. I think it's fairly obvious that humans are capable of suffering more than ants. There is, and you would agree I assume, a difference between killing an ant and a human, between eating lettuce and eating chimpanzee. What makes these things different? It's the capability for the respective organisms to suffer. I think this is almost axiomatic.

Please keep this serious. Where are ants relevent to the artical? And who is exploiting ants exactly? If you mean to draw some less absurd divergance between suffering and consciousness, know that none exists among the higher mammals.

In a perfect world there would be no disease, we would be able to fully simulate the human body on computers and perform medical tests and trials etc "virtually" without any unnecessary suffering. We do not live in a perfect world and for that reason our ideals collide with reality and we have to make decisions.

So I'm too assume that you are okay with the forceful testing on humans and harvesting of organs then?

I assume your a vegetarian, and a "moral vegetarian". Now I think "moral vegetarians" have got it wrong. One argument for vegetarianism is that the animals reared for consumption are treated appalling and only in regard to cheap food (on which I agree). However, if these millions of "moral vegetarians" paid for meat reared in a considerate manner, where the animals were given stress free lives etc, the suffering of animals would decrease unimaginably because money talks. Moral vegetarianism actually perpetuates animal suffering.

You seem to not understand that I am simply drawing no fundemental difference between humans and other animals. So just replace "cows" with "humans" and see if you'd agree.

All of the conclusions I have made follow logically from the realisation that there is no metaphysical or fundemental difference between humans and other animals. Only arbitrary differences. Most of the people on this site don't object to this fact, they merely are unwilling to take it to it's logical conclusion.

I start with ideals and when I have to I consider carefully where reality interacts with these ideals and I make decisions.

Really? I have to admit that I am surprized. I saw a study a few months ago, I think it was posted on this site that asked the question of how people draw moral considerations, and the graph was almost linear moving to "ideals" the more religious and conversative you got, and "consideration of suffering and well being" the more liberal and irreligious you got.

The religious have some imaginary backing for ideals, they believe that the authority of god is behind them. You do realise that without that all of your moral considerations are entirely arbitrary, right? That doesn't bother you? If not then I am incapable of convincing you that raping children is wrong unless you already hold that opinion.

494. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182014 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 5:47 am

35. Comment #182011 by Clydey

We're all the kings of our own hypothetical worlds. This demonstrates nothing. If your family were being held by a psycho and you were given the option to kill your own family or a strangers family. Which would you decide?

If you decide to kill the strangers family does this mean that you believe that your own family deserves more rights and freedoms, than anyone else? Simply because you are willing to sacrifice any other family before your own.

Anyone can play hypothetical games.

495. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182012 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 5:40 am

I'm getting rather annoyed by you implications that I'm an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, Clydey. Please reframe from insulting my intelligence. Also you have evaded my questions.

Answer my questions. Is it not the case that more peoples lives would have been saved by testing on humans, and harvesting human organs? Are you willing to not do this with the understanding of all the potential people that could have been, and could be saved by this? Or do you not also understand the unjust, and unacceptable nature of taking some lives, to save others, or causing suffering to augment suffering?

This is hypocrisy. You must concede this for animals if you concede this for humans. What this truely comes down to is where you draw the line on your moral considerations. If you are as informed as you pretend to be, you will know that drawing the line at human beings is completely arbitrary, and no more justified than drawing it at race, religion, nation, height or weight.

496. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182002 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 5:15 am

30. Comment #182000 by Clydey

Clearly you did not see my rationale. Do you not agree that information gathered from testing on humans would be more valuable? Holding more benefits? That harvesting a few humans here and there for organs would also be beneficial to the whole?

It is a sheer unjustified double-standard to use other animals in this way but not human beings.

It is also rather silly, and irrational to note a case of hypocrisy and say it reminds you of me, unless you can point out where I have contradicted myself? Beyond what you imagined to be my ignorance of the subject.

The "you don't agree with me, so you must not know any better" is an annoying mind set.

497. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182001 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 5:11 am

22. Comment #181961 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

It shows my "desensitisation" as this didn't register as being exploitative. I drink cow's milk and eat beef I see this as no worse,

I'm sure you don't, but you are wrong.

and potentially providing unquantifiable benefits to fully conscious human beings,

What does "fully conscious" mean exactly?

that are infinitely more capable of suffering.

Huh? Where did you get this idea? This is patantly false. A statement of faith completely contradicted by the available evidence. It seems the religious are not the only ones that hold to metaphysical differences between human and "animals". I find that so-called rationalists are just as irrational when it comes to this.

This consideration didn't enter into my moral calculus.

What do you base your moral considerations on exactly?

498. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #181919 by Mitchell Gilks on May 18, 2008 at 7:06 pm

18. Comment #181888 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I may have missed something and I apologise if I have, but where are non-human animal subjects being used raised in this article?

I am amazed that you could have missed it. Where do you think those animal eggs are coming from? The egg fairy? The entire artical is about using non-human eggs for embryolic research because human eggs are hard to come by. Mainly because they have to ask permission for female human eggs. They can just harvest eggs from non-humans.

499. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #181884 by Mitchell Gilks on May 18, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I am fully supportive of embryolic reseach, with consenting human participants. I am however fully against the exploitation of non-consenting non-human animal subjects. Of course in any and all cases, not just this one.

I find it highly presumptuous for some people to outright say that it would be impossible to object to this unless religious. To stem-cell research, perhaps (though I'm not omniscient, so I can just say that I've never heard any good secular objections), but the use of non-human animals is completely another story. Surely the religious would have completely different reasons for objecting to it. Like the specialness of humans, or something silly about souls or something. I highly doubt any are objecting for the sake of the non-human animals being exploited in the process. Undoubtably it would be useful, and perhaps even save lives. So would killing one person to harvest the organs for six, also information gathered from scientific testing on humans would be far better, and easily applicable to human beings than information gathered from testing on non-humans. For the same reasons that I would be against doing such things on humans, I am against using non-human animals in the same way.

What I find sad is that no one seems to even raise this as a possible point of objection in the artical, or in the comments above. Silly, and rediculous objections by the delusional of course take center stage. Everyone is so apparently desensitized to the sufferage and exploitation of non-humans.

500. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181879 by Mitchell Gilks on May 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm

This disgusts me. This reminds me of a dark moment in Canadian history, when a plan was passed by the government known as "white paper" that forcefully removed native children from their homes, and attempted to essimilate them by putting them into catholic schools. Where they were taught that their cultural traditions were evil, their families were hell bound, and were beaten for speaking any native langauges, some of which didn't know english. They were physically mentally and sexually abused under catholic reign, for I believe more than a decade before it was defeated in court. I believe pyschologists have pointed to this event to explain the increase and violence in native communitees in the decades following.

It seems that the catholic educational system is where society's sick and twisted find their home.