....... 1000, 1000000, 1000000000? How many would it take to surpass the human's life? It doesn't matter what the human is like?
Never. I'd raher you kill every animal in the world than kill a human.
That is a really poorly thought out response I think. What if the human is a pedophile? What if he is mentally retarded? I think humans are very stupid to think they're so special. You claim you're not religious at all (you actually seem to detest the idea of faith), yet you hold this naive belief that humans are so different -- grasping to vague concepts like the completely unscientific idea of a soul -- in order to justify a pig-headed standpoint.
Nope, I can't prove them in any way that would be universally agreed upon. But I think that everybody can agree that there's something special that humans have that animals don't. Call it what you want, but it has to be there. No other animals seem to have the ability to reason the way we do.
No, I don't agree,
most biologists don't agree, and most thoughtful people who have spent time with intelligent animals don't agree. So this vague "something special" idea you have makes 1 human life more important than any animal life? I just can't really believe what I'm reading. The notion seems so revolting to me. There are so many
stupid,
awful people out there, and certain animals have repeatedly demonstrated exceptional intelligence in certain areas. Most lazy, self-important humans just can't be
bothered to think about whether it's right to
slaughter certain animals. Thoughtless
murder is more our style.
--
I'll let you in on a secret. We
are human so we're all inclined to feel that our species is better than anything else. It's not logical, it's an instinct. You'll find the same trait in other sorts of animals. And if you actually study university-level biology you'll realize that there is nothing particularly special about humans. We got lucky in some ways with tool development and this is why we have advanced so far.
We could probably keep arguing about this forever. But in the end you must realize that you won't be able to pinpoint a logical reason for believing that human life is more valuable than certain animal life (yes I choose to be specific to animals like killer whales, seals, sea-otters, wolf-dogs, bears, etc). If "something special" is why you would choose to sacrifice an unlimited number of animals to save 1 human, then I seriously think you need to re-examine your position. All mammals are linked together on a phylogenetic tree, and there is nothing notable (genetically) to differentiate humans: we're just the end of one more branch on a big tree. In order to have an intelligent discussion and also make such an incredibly strong statement, I think you need to go out of your way to study animal intelligence and really consider if there is something that should differentiate
all humans from other animals; somehow I don't think you've done this. And I don't imagine using words like "pig-headed" helps my case, but it's how I feel, and I really have invested myself into thinking about this question. Besides, the callous way we seem to disregard animal life bothers me in the same way it might bother you if someone said that they'd sacrifice your whole family to save the leader of North Korea because he has something special that your gene-pool does not. I'm not kidding, it's really sickening to me. I probably feel more strongly about this than any other so-called common "debate" (e.g. gay marriage..).
When a question is asked, it can be answered as is -- with the wording used and all that it implies -- or...
I disagree. There are certain...
I don't really see how you can disagree. Everything I said was irrefutably true. I didn't say certain words don't have stronger emotional connotations. Should we just get rid of those words altogether for that reason? What are those words? Would all other people agree with you on which words are most "loaded"? Is it a discrete thing -- is one word "loaded" and the other not? Or is it a continuous spectrum? Is it well defined? I pointed out that so-called "loaded" language should only be a problem when it is used to inaccurately refer to someone else's beliefs, and that technically speaking nearly all language is "rigged" (whether it is intentional or not). I can ask a question that uses whichever wording I want, and it is
your responsibility how you answer it, not mine! I think that's fair game. Anyways, this is bordeline minutia crap that's besides the point.
--
Aside (not specifically directed towards iago):
The way most people tend to think is unbelievably irritating. I'd guess that most of the same people who would be completely outraged if a braindead human patient were euthanised would be totally indifferent to the death of thousands of guide-dogs. People are so fucking awful. Anything amazing done by our race has been done by a few very select incredibly gifted people who represent probably 1/1000000 of the population. And somehow the human race gets credited for their work when everyone else is a thoughtless, self-centred, self-gratifying waste of oxygen.
Most people base their entire lives on these questions:
1) Will there be negative consequences to me for what I do
2) Will it bring me immediate pleasure
3) Is it easy
(of course most of this is subconscious). I believe almost no-one would be willing to truly compromise their own position for someone else's benefit, in spite of what they would like others to believe. The title of this thread is really appropriate.