Whenever this comes up the poster is compared to Hitler. The Spartans did the same thing, yet their society is almost revered by western civilization. Why does calling him a Spartan have so much less impact than saying he is "hitleresque?"
Whenever this comes up the poster is compared to Hitler. The Spartans did the same thing, yet their society is almost revered by western civilization. Why does calling him a Spartan have so much less impact than saying he is "hitleresque?"
This is one of those rare circumstances when a controversial topic actually has a place on ATOT and not just on P&N.
Kalmah
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 3,692
- 1
- 76
It sounds like a good decision to me. (other than not keep her alive)
I suppose you all that appose it would like to be changing a grown woman's diper and tampon and bathing her and feeding her...
They will be able to fit her in a child seat indefinately now. It will be more like taking care of a child...
It sounds like this girl is beyond a practical state to even keep alive though. If she will never be able to stand or have any kind of ability to communicate with anybody..
I suppose you all that appose it would like to be changing a grown woman's diper and tampon and bathing her and feeding her...
They will be able to fit her in a child seat indefinately now. It will be more like taking care of a child...
It sounds like this girl is beyond a practical state to even keep alive though. If she will never be able to stand or have any kind of ability to communicate with anybody..
I wonder why genetics (a well understood principle) suddenly becomes "Eugenics" when it's applied to people?
For example, everyone knows that you can breed a smarter, more healthier breed of dog, cat, mouse, lizard, monkey, fish, etc by using well understood techniques. Everyone knows that if you keep breeding the dogs that exhibit the most aggressive behavior, that the offspring, on average, will increase in aggressiveness.
But when that same principle is applied to people, all hell breaks loose with people claiming it a crime and something that just doesn't work. It's attacked from the right by religious zealots who abhor the thought of evolution being a possibility, and it's attacked from the left by people whining that the weak won't get a chance.
Let's take me, for instance. I have to wear glasses to see. My vision is so bad that without glasses, I couldn't see anything more than a few feet from me. In the distant past, people without clear vision would die off because they couldn't avoid predators and enemies, couldn't catch food, and couldn't see where they were going. As a result, genes for poor vision didn't spread much. If you were one of the unlucky few to be born with vision problems, you were pretty much doomed. But with the invention of glasses, most people with vision problems can see. The obvious upside is that those who are born with poor eyesight can now function normally and reproduce. The downside is that the genes for poor vision are much more likely to be passed on, and now quite a sizeable population, myself included, needs glasses to function.
In the short term, we are helping those who need help, but in the long term we are weakening the human gene pool.
A cat's means of living is very simple, true. However, the cat will not experience those things which you obviously take for granted. A cat will never look up at the sky and question who or what is out there, when will we go there, and who in the past has looked up at the sky and formulated the same questions. A cat will never appreciate Shakespeare or a fine wine. A cat simply lives and follows its survival and reproductive instincts.
In addition, I've only ever seen livelihood used to descibe one's financial means to make a living. Earning a financial living is something that humans do. I do not understand why you continue to personify your cat. Your cat doesn't have to do anything for its food, so it lucked out, but that does not mean it has more "livelihood." In fact, the cat will never have better financial means than you as it is totally dependent on you. You are just jealous that your cat lays around all day and eats. I can understand why you'd want to be him and do that, but I'm assuming you'd only make such a choice with the implied understanding that you'd retain current mental capacity. What good would sleep and food do in a world where you could not think?
I do not know why you slipped into ad hominem and I do not believe I deserve to be the target of such an attack. Although it is none of your business, I paid for my college education and continue to pay for my graduate education. I also have a career with the university. I do not know what bearing this has on the current debate.
Actually, my undergraduate degree is in Microbiology and I've owned several pets although none right now. Your assertion is correct. I do not believe animals can have a desire to live the way humans would define it. A cat simply lives and follows instincts. Following those instincts may provide pleasure. I'm sure your instinct to make immediate personal attacks on myself provided you with some sort of pleasure, but lacks higher order consideration. Cats play with each other because instinct dictates as such. Instinct dictates as such because this is how cats practice hunting skills.
It's really quite simple. Cats will always do what their instincts tell them to do. Humans will often act in opposition to their instincts. I do not physically attack someone when threatened because I have a desire to remain free. I do not make sexual advances on coworkers because I have a desire to remain employed. I do not have sex with anyone but my SO because I have a desire to remain with her. No matter how many times my instincts might tell me to resort to violence or to have sex with an attractive potential mate, I do not because my humanly higher order desires tell me to do differently. Cats do not have these higher order desires.
This is quite easy to prove actually. Humans have a survival instinct. However, humans understand the difference between life and death. As such, while most humans desire to live, there will be some that desire to die. Consequently, you'll find there are humans who overcome their survival instincts in their desire to die, suicide. You can provide evidence that cats understand the difference between life and death by showing me a cat that has willing ended its life because it chose non-life over life. There are many abused and neglected animals out there, so surely one must have chosen to take the easy way out and end the suffering, correct?
Despite the fact that you provided more ad hominem than actual evidence or argument I will provide a rebuttal. Please, try to debate more and insult less in the future.
No, you cannot decide to kill someone else in the US with or without their consent (at least in the US). In other countries, I'm sure, you may help someone as long as they give consent. You can put your pet to sleep whenever you'd like even though the cat doesn't and, of course, cannot give consent. Furthermore, I don't see how my statement is absurd. Human laws are created for humans and apply to humans and not animals because humans recognize the fundamental difference between man and animal. If humanity truly believed, as you do, that cats do have some sentient presence, then we would apply our laws equally to man and cats. If anyone truly believed, as you do, that cats appreciate life and have higher order brain functions then it would be wrong to put a cat down without the cat's consent. Obviously, in this case, it would be difficult to obtain such a consent without communication, but if a cat was truly sentient, then surely it would find some way to communicate that it no longer wanted to live.
And there are laws that protect animals, but only in the sense that we have an ethical duty to respect all life. However, by law, animals are still regarded as property. If I steal your pet, it is not kidnapping, it is theft. Law recognizes pets as property because they are not sentient beings. I do not understand why this is so hard to comprehend. You are asserting, for whatever reason, that your cat has some sort of sentient presence and can appreciate life on a human level. It cannot.
I understand this may be hard. I have had cats too and I also tried to personify them. I would talk to them thinking that they might understand what I was saying. Obviously, they cannot. This is why I never took my cat outside to watch the stars, something I might do with my SO. I never took my cat to a museum and a performing arts piece, that cat would not understand what is happening. Cats are not humans and do not have a sentient experience. They are instinctual beings. Creatures that experience imagination, higher order thinking, appreciation of abstract concepts, are creatures that can have desires. Your cat simply lives.
Now, we can continue this argument or we can end it. It is obvious that you have a pet you feel is part of your family and do not like to hear how it cannot interact with you on a human-like plane of existence. This has been made obvious by your relentless attacks on me without providing any real justification for what you are saying. If we are to continue this debate then you need to be rational. You do not know where I have grown up, who my parents were, or where I am attending and have attended high school, undergraduate school, and graduate school. Let's keep the insults to a minimum.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter