Smile.

[i_am_the_owl]

//

Main:It's easy to get caught up in the individualism of life, suggesting a subjective morality, but true individualism only exists if you never interact with anyone else. Decisions made by the average individual directly affect the lives of dozens of others and indirectly affect possibly hundreds more. Thus you have society, and with that

Comments

[i_am_the_owl]

Your projection of blame is completely irrational. I see plenty of people chainsmoking, but I don't take the cigarettes out of their mouths because I'm not responsible for giving them cancer. If I was holding them down and forcing smoke into their lungs, then you'd certainly have a case. No one has an obligation to better society if for no other reason than freedom and liberty are things that society collectively values. If people voluntarily submitted themselves to oppression and coersion, that's quite different from society projecting coersion onto them. Furthermore, the potential for "good" does not equate to actual "good". Claiming that using birth control is the equivilent of murder is exceptionally backward. I'm sure we can agree that my freedom to swing my fist ends where the nose of another person begins, but what freedom does the collective have to put me at its whims?

Emotion is an even worse way. Genetic similarity is at least objective, but emotions? How does one differentiate between an actual emotion and the appearance of one? What animal wouldn't run away from a predator? Does this mean that all animals have emotions because they demonstrate fear? How do we determine if different species have different emotions from the ones that humans are capable of feeling and recognizing, or even if we handle the same emotion in different ways? Far too much subjectivity.

There are lot's of political philosophies calling for more power to go to the more educated (or de facto educated). Voting based on just how educated someone is (academics' votes count for more than a factory worker) or income (the more you make, the more your vote counts for) is an example of this. Personally, I like the one individual:one vote system, but I think that American citizens should have to pass the citizenship test that we give to immigrants before they're allowed to vote.

[zorander22]

Heh, I knew that would stir you up. I don't take cigarettes out of their mouths because I don't think that taking that action would help them in the long run (a, because they'd probably retaliate by smoking even more to reassert their freedom, and b, because people figuring out stuff on their own usually works much better than ramming it down their throats). Well, birth control isn't bad because there are often times when it would be worse having a child at that time (or at all)... for example, if you didn't have the resources to provide for the child, or didn't think you'd love the child, or had more you wanted to do with your life. But, for example, punching a pregnant woman in the stomach to kill the fetus, is, in many ways, murder.

Well, if you can demonstrate an animal is capable of pain and pleasure, that should afford it some rights, I'd think. You'd look for the best possible evidence you'd have. I think every animal deserves respect; the only time I'll kill something is if I think it'd be better overall.

I agree with something like the citizenship test... except maybe it should be done with each election, and focus on if they know what the issues are and which ways the parties are planning on going on those issues... otherwise you're voting for a party name which may bear little resemblance to what you actually want to happen with the country.

[i_am_the_owl]

No one is talking about punching a pregnant woman in the stomach. I don't even understand how you can make the transition from sex-toys to abortion especially while still advocating birth control.

And that's a subjective determination.

If you do it every election, there will too much party influence on the test itself. Just once when you register to vote for the first time would be plenty.

[zorander22]

Whether or not it was about sex-toys was irrelevant. It had to do with there being much more important issues (I don't see how sex-toys are important at all) to deal with, and they were drawing away time and resources by fooling around with outlawing sex-toys, while, presumably, there were much more important issues to deal with.

Theoretically, all or most animals are capable of some sort of pain/pleasure... to encourage them to eat for example, or stay away from harmful situations. So all animals deserve some rights at least... or at least some compassion.

Yeah, I guess at least. It makes more sense than minimum voting age anyway.

[i_am_the_owl]

Ah, I thought you were saying that sex-toys should be banned because their use would take up time and resources. The bureaucratic waste of time inherant in American politics is not going to go away anytime soon, unfortunately.

But insects don't? Or fish?

Indeed.

[zorander22]

LOL, no... I guess it didn't come out right, I was saying that banning them was the part of a lower morality, wasting time... for what? So people can't have mechanical help in getting off? Ridiculous.

I'd imagine insects and fish have pain and pleasure too, though I'm not positive. I don't kill insects for fun though :P Same with fish... What makes you think I didn't think highly of insects and fish?

[i_am_the_owl]

Quite ridiculous.

There's the longstanding notion that fish don't feel pain. I'm surprised you've never heard it before. Insects are quite possibly the most alien species on the planet in relationship to us (we share more DNA in common with a banana than a housefly). Have you noticed an insect taking pleasure or pain in any way that relates to us?

[zorander22]

I agree, insects are quite alien... they sort of seem like nature's machines to me. I guess you'd have to... some how examine the brains of insects and fish to tell if there's an activity that seems to suggest pain. I just did a google search (by no means conclusive, I know)... and found this regarding fish and pain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm

I found this regarding insects and pain:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1997-12/876705774.Zo.r.html
But it seems much less certain that insects are capable of feeling pain. Either way, it made me think... Maybe if something feels pain or not isn't that important. There are some people who can't experience pain (I met one)... so I don't think that means they should have less rights. I guess as long as something is alive, and everything is better off with it being alive and unharmed, let it go... heh, respect for all the world, man!

[i_am_the_owl]

Oddly enough, examining the brains of insects to determine if cutting them open to exam their brains is morally acceptable seems contradictory.

I wouldn't be surprised that both feel pain and I cannot advocate cruelty to either.

[wifflebatgaijin]

What about killing someone instantly? That causes no pain.

Does this mean I can mindlessly murder people so long as I don't cause them pain in the process.

So I agree, we need to abandon this whole "it feels pain" logic.

[zorander22]

Well, if you're going to talk about rights, I think it makes sense for one way to be what harm you are causing it by not getting rights, or what benefits it would get by gaining rights... so pain would fall under the harm category. It feels pain can't be the only criteria, or the most important one...

I think it's just better to be safe all around and try not to harm anything if it can be helped.

[wifflebatgaijin]

But then you get into the ever wonderful discussion of what constitutes harm. Are we talking only physical harm? What about mental harm?

I think the first mistake is trying to really define any of this. What may constitute mental harm in one case could be nothing in another.

I suggest when it comes to these kinds of decisions, instead of constructing legislative or moral walls, we should construct legislative or moral boxing ring ropes.