Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "Should Animals Have Human Rights? (Pokémon + Speciesism) - 8-Bit Philosophy" video.

Rusty Shackleford Well the fact how our society is construct and the fact that we have created technology. Should be more than enough for aliens to see that were intelligent specie. Different thing is do they view us as their equal.
2
Rusty Shackleford " An alien may not. If Earth's surface were covered in desert, would you think deserts are naturally occurring? "^ Most planets in this universe has deserts in them. So far we have found 0 planets with anything similar to the human buildings on it's surface. You're just being ridiculous in here. Just admit it. No technologically advanced alien would be that stupid as you claim. "Yes. Cities exist all over the planet, so it would be feasible to think they're natural." Only if that's the only planet you have ever seen or heard about. Which wouldn't be true at all for space traveling aliens Your pathetic defence for those animals is just pathetic. Man up and admit that you're wrong on this part.
2
Rusty Shackleford So what? We have founded birds building small houses and ants building colonies. If we can see them doing something like that then what stops aliens from seeing the same. It's easy to see difference of construct and natural building. The satellites would be the absolute evidence of our intelligence. Only a fucking idiot would think that specie which is capable of space traveling wouldn't be intelligent.
2
Rusty Shackleford well good to see that you finally admit that aliens would be capable of seeing us as intelligent specie.
2
Rusty Shackleford Then they would be too stupid to even do space traveling in the first place. Or are you saying that they are so stupid that think satellites are natural?
1
Rusty Shackleford Space whales? Stop living in a fiction. Also in ordet to launch satellites you need to know how to space travel. You see many of those satellites have people inside of them working in there. Not to mention that is purely semantics from your part. You have lost this, be man enough to admit it.
1
Rusty Shackleford IF you have stopped trying then you should man up and admit that you were wrong, instead of becoming a clown. However so far you have shown to be so ignorant that I wouldn't be surprise if you believe in space whales.
1
Rusty Shackleford You were ridiculous with your initial claim. Now grow up. If you can't even defend your own argument then admit that you have lost it.
1
Rusty Shackleford Haven't seen you admitting. Expect now.
1
midnight15086 Then those chimps who are capable of communicating and have higher IQ than some humans should have rights. Simple as that. Nothing paradoxical or speciesist there. However if "ability to suffer" is used as reasoning here. Then humans who can't neither physical nor emotional pain shouldn't have any rights. So back to the square one. The thing is, world is a cruel place and other animals doesn't give a shit do you have right or not. So far humans are only specie on this planet which can ensure survival of most species in future. This planet of ours won't last forever and neither will the sun. We are this planet's life only bet to spread out further.
1
midnight15086 So far what we have seen, we are only specie of this planet that ever has been capable of space traveling. Hence evolutionary trend holds no argument in here. " Idk if I would describe the natural world as cruel though" You should watch real documentaries and studies instead of disney movies. " A lion rips apart a gazelle to eat, and that seems cruel to the gazelle but the lion does not do it out of malice" Lion only eats while the gazelle is still alive. Some cat specie kill for fun not for survival. "But what is a human being who can't feel emotional or physical pain? " There are people who don't have emotions and there are people who don't feel pain. You don't need to be vegatable in order to be in that state. " Or an extreme sociopath with CIPA? An existence like that IS utterly pointless. " I'm not arguing it's existence. I'm arguing that your argument holds no good reasoning if only suffering is the reasoning behind this. With your very own logic we shouldn't allow those people to have no rights.
1
midnight15086 " I'm not sure why evolution would be irrelevant just because we are capable of space travel. " I Did explain it already. You should learn to listen. " The fact that we traveled to the moon in the 1960s and 1970s and have gone no where beyond that since then" Literally irrelevant. We have space tech, we just don't have reason to travel any further currently. "has not stopped natural selection or genetic drift." Expect we have gene engineer technology and our technology has already made sure that were no longer slaves of nature. " but I think it's more important to look at what we have accomplished in reality. " More than any specie has ever accomplished. "As of now we have zero capability of sending humans to even the nearest star besides the sun" Irrelevant. AS for now we are only creatures which are capable of doing so in future. Seems like you're not capable of thinking in future. "Also, the ability to travel into space is due to the accomplishments of the few best and brightest of the species- that is not representative of the level of an average human being's intelligence. " And why should it? What I were pointing out that were the most important animal on this planet that currently exist. Because were only one who could achieve this. "I think that the worst, most extreme cruelties in life are committed by... human beings." Really, just stop watching disney. There are animals which have destroyed whole forests. Humans merely have better tools to do that if they so wish. " I misunderstood, I thought you were referring to someone who can feel neither, not someone who can't feel one or the other. " If we have people who can't feel other then we can easily have people who can't feel neither. They would be rare but it's within possibilities. And that is my point. You see feelings have nothing to do with being vegetable. But what do I expect from a delusional person who believes in disney stories. "I would argue that we are not, and that animals are just as capable of suffering as we are." And I would argue that rights don't exists. Human rights are merely rules of society which are good rules, but they don't exists objectively.
1
midnight15086 So far you haven't found any point to contradict the fact that we are only hope for this planet's other living beings. "You probably think we are the purpose and meaning that the universe revolves around. " Literally nothing to do what I think. I'm realistic. Not some idiot who thinks that world goes around us. I just can see that were currently only living being on this planet which can give hope for everything else.
1
BobWidlefish "Yes they do. Don't have children." Actually in some older tribal society not having children would also fuck you up. Just saying. "Well that's where this gets interesting, I think." No it's not. In society where people are limited with resources handicapped children could easily get whole tribe killed. Which is why they were always killed in old societies. Morality is something which changes according to the context. There is no divine ruler telling what is right and wrong. "Regarding decisions vs. selfishness, I don't understand the question." Because you don't think deep enough.
1
BobWidlefish "rue, of course. My interest is in talking about the issue in the present day, and in the future." Expect you don't know are we already living in a world state where handicapped people could doom as us all. Nor do you know can that be the case in future. Hence it's relevant thing to point out. "I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean. Systems of ethics are very complex, for sure." It means that something can be justified as morally good action thousand years ago, which today could be considered bad. For example being gay. In older days they didn't reproduce and introduced lot of disease (anal is good way to spread diseases) to the society. However in modern times we have overpopulation and condoms. Hence the disease and not having children makes it so that being gay is no longer morally bad choice. Same applies to killing. If situation demands that either one man has to die or 10 men. Then choosing one man to die is the morally right thing to do even though killing is considered by some as a ultimate act of evil. "I think it's far more interesting to look at morality and ethics in the abstract and talk about what is ideal" No it's not. In fact it's the opposite. In ideal world nothing bad would happen to anyone and everyone is happy. Morality always depends on the context hence disney world thinking that you're couraging doesn't work in the real world. " Said another way: I'm more interested in the principle than the history " Principles depend on history and context. " it's not a great guide to what's right, and I'm most interesting in what's right." Because right and wrong depends on context and history helps us to see it. You're basically making claim that absolute right and wrong exists and it's made by some divine judge. "Perhaps. Can you clarify what was meant?" Farsight. Look further than just the first glance.
1
BobWidlefish That doesn't mean that morality exists. It's just matter of does the certain behavior lead to the results we want. If someone for some reason wants to destroy everything. Then by that person's perspective it would be evil to do deeds which help others.
1
midnight15086 "Are we the heroes if we just go around creating trash dumps out of every planet we land on?" Literally irrelevant point. So many fallacies in that one. Straw Man argument and red herring in the same. And who knows maybe the meaning of life is to create thrash dumps on every planet. "Do we even deserve to make it to another planet??? " there is no such thing as "deserve" in this universe. Again stop watching disney movies. "what if the planet we arrive at already has a full ecosystem, and we impose a burden on THEM? " And what if the planet we arrive in we actually revive their ecosystem from disaster that happened there? Stupid question is stupid. " And currently we do destroy more species than we save" Natural selection, and all of those species would die anyway if we wouldn't start space traveling in future. Hence your argument from extinction just makes you look even more foolish. ". And even if we engineer our own genes to be better, eventually there will be enough changes (over millions of years), that there will a different species from what you would describe now as a "human." " And that is bad why? " according to the laws of physics, can travel faster than light, this species will need a wormhole or warp drive " You don't need any of those. Ever considered having a spaceship which simply travels slowly. It doesn't mean that our generation should reach there while living. " But I also think it's possible that humans will destroy the earth before any of this happens, with overpopulation and pollution." This proves that you don't actually know shit about this planet and science. Were not destroying this planet. Were merely destroying ourselves. We can destroy the environment where we can live. However that doesn't mean that other kind of animals can't survive in polluted world. Planet literally doesn't give a fuck unless you blow it apart. "animals that destroy whole forests?" Yeah, that would be us." Actually there are other animals doing that. Some species of ants are known to scourge huge forests and cats been killing other birds to extinction just for fun of killing. Goats eating all the plants from small islands etc...
1
midnight15086 It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with it. Everyone can paint horror scenarios all over the place. Like what if you go outside and meteor will hit you for example. " if you say that perhaps humanity is this planet's life's only bet to spread out further, and I say that perhaps we shouldn't do that" Yet you can't make any decent argument why we shouldn't do that. You're literally proposing that all life should be doomed on this planet simply because you fear that some person might cause problems somewhere. In otherwords you're dooming everyone simply because of one possible asshole. Good job on showing that you're one of those assholes. " I ask you, why SHOULD we? Why is it so imperative that the human race lives on eternally?" Please provide quote where I said that human race should live on eternally. I merely pointed out that were only chance for every life form on this planet to make sure that they don't meet certain doom which you would love to see. "Because we're "the best?" That may not be true, there could be life forms" Until you show me one of those life forms your argument is invalid. They could have as stupid people as you also thinking that they shouldn't do shit just because someone might be asshole hence dooming everyone. "I questioned, "what if the planet we arrive at already has a full ecosystem, and we impose a burden on THEM?" And you didn't answer, " There was no reason to answer to it. Which is why I gave you example what if we actually save that planet. I thought you would've been smart enough to get my point but I was wrong. "Both scenarios are possible, so what is your answer to my question? " My answer is that it doesn't matter. Because the scenario literally has no reason to stop anyone from space traveling. Again you are suggesting that everyone should be doomed because someone might make mistake somewhere. If that is the case then why haven't you killed yourself yet? "My argument from extinction makes me foolish? You are arguing about hypothetical "someday" possibilities." Yes it's foolish especially since there has been even more animals gone extinction even before humans and more will go in future regardless do humans exists or not. It's called as natural selection. Deal with it. My hypothetical situation is based on the fact that were currently only living being capable of achieving this hence by all means our lives have more meaning than one rat's. Until you can prove that the rat can contribute more to the world than human potentially can. "There are biologists right now who write papers about how earth may be experiencing the 6th mass extinction because so many more species are dying out" Species which can't adapt will die. Nothing new here. More specialized they are the more likely they are to die. This is life and it has always been like this even before humans. Those animals who can adapt to the world where humans are dominant specie will survive. " never mean to imply that humans evolving (due to their own engineering) into a more advanced species is a bad thing at all. I said it is fine" Then don't mention it because it's irrelevant. I figured that shit out on the elementary school already. You're not schooling anyone in here. ". I was just trying to explain 1 reason why I thought " " "humans " " " won't be around when the sun burns out." I never said ""humans"" should live forever which is why I said that you committed a strawman argument. "Because it would be a different species that originated from humans. It wouldn't be "us." " Yet they needed us in order to come to the world. Hence your doomsaying against humans is pointless. "hen how do we save all these animals if we can't transport anything from earth to somewhere else and have it still be alive when it reaches its destination? Teleport them?" Is that only solution you can figure out? First of all you totally ignored the fact about building a space arc which could sustain life. You know like a moving planet. Not to mention you're not even considering thing called as Gene bank. "Do you really think that we are the only animals that can't survive in a polluted world? What about all the marine animals that die from our oil spills? " I don't see how that would mean that whole world will be destroyed because of humans. Which was my whole point. Trying to move the goalpost isn't going to safe your face. "I'm not saying other animals can't destroy forests. I'm saying we do too. So how are we any better? " Yes we are because we can do potentially more than they do. And we have done more to other animals than any other animal specie has ever done to other one. In good and in bad. Don't judge whole specie simply because few rotten apples.
1
midnight15086 "I think you only prefer to look at the positives and ignore the negatives about humanity. " Nope, I'm simply realistic. I look both of them and so far in realistic point of view mankind is the only choice for life on this planet ever to survive in long term. "Maybe we will be the saviors of our planet. Or maybe we will go extinct like other species do. So what. People live, people die, species evolve, species go extinct." What rights you have to condemn to death all the people of future and other animals of future? It's them to decide do they want to live or not. " Fantastic. But instead of worrying about whether we'll save ourselves when the sun burns out (or the things that will come long after that, such as our galaxy colliding with Andromeda) we could focus our energies on solving our current problems" Actually according to your previous line of thinking we shouldn't. Since people who are pessimistic as you just wish that everyone would simply die. I have never implied or said that we shouldn't worry about current state. I have merely said that in current state of this planet. We are only living thing which can help everyone, and if we should die simply because you're pessimistic, you're then condemning all life to die. " If our species is so advanced, we ought to be able to solve our problems of crime, overpopulation, pollution, etc. Shouldn't we?" That is a fallacy. First of all those are different fields of science how to solve them. Second of all, we already have solutions for many of them. Problems is that people like you tend to oppose them.
1
midnight15086 Semantics whatever you're pessimist or cynic. Your behavior and attitude is still a huge issue. "I just think that the average person does not follow those solutions, even when they are educated about them." Expect average IQ has been shown to be increased. Not to mention the fact that with Gene technology average person can also become highly intelligent one. Even without stopping being a human. " I want us to wake up to the mess we are in and solve it " then start solving it instead of being cynical and live in your cave. "You can't solve problems if you are simply satisfied with the status quo" You can. Nothing stops you from solving problems. Though are they even problems if you don't see them as problems? " I think we should strive for perfection" Yet you have suggested pretty much genocide of whole mankind simply because they might cause problems in another planet.
1
midnight15086 " Really? Stick your head in the sand and all the problems go away? " Literally nothing to do with my words. "I'm not suggesting "genocide" of whole mankind, genocide involves systematic killing. " Yet you cry that it would be better if we didn't exists. Ironic isn't it? "I agree. If we can better our species by picking the best embryos or by "fixing" people's neurobiology, that's great." good.
1
***** " It is a SIMPLE fact that in general the ENTIRE PLANET would be better off without humanity regardless of beliefs mankind DOES actively harm the planet and ALL of its inhabitants including itself." I want to see you say that when sun literally has grown too big and will burn everything on this planet. "We have wiped out SEVERAL entire species " So have many other animals done the same. Cats are good example of that. What is more hilarious that cats do it for fun. "Hell even for people who are religious(Unlike myself) should know this because the ENTIRE basis of the bible is that mankind is almost fundamentally irredeemable " Any facts to back this up? IF this would be the case you wouldn't be blaming mankind here but polluting the earth just for fun. "So on that one subject. YES the world WOULD be a better place if we didn't exist." Not in long term, and it's sad that you cannot think into the future. Really are you teenager or something?
1
***** Actually CATS HAVE DONE THAT. Google it out. Cat's have killed bird species to extinction. ". As for the sun thing actually no it hasn't it WILL in the future because its going to eventually supernova but we are the ones weakening our own atmosphere." You do fucking realize that before exploding it will become larger? Hence making living on earth a lot hotter. Human beings are literally only fucking living things on this planet currently which can make sure that not all life should be doomed just because idiots like you decide to blame mankind over every fucking issue that happens in nature naturally. "As for the bible bit yes, Adam and Eve with the apple of Eden was the base thing and to be redeemed according to the bible Jesus Christ had to die " What the fuck bible has to do with this? Bible literally carries no value in this conversation unless you can prove it true. It's just a fucking story book. ", but we have not actually STOPPED doing so we have SLOWED those processes." HAHAHAHAH oh doge you're so misinformed. Ever heard about ozone layer? Yeah that thing got better. But hey since when news media posts anything positive.
1
BobWidlefish " To suggest morality doesn't exist is to suggest that what we value and believe is not helpful for guiding outcomes" Some people find believing into god as helpful and guiding outcomes. Does that mean that we should accept it as evidence that god exists? Something being useful doesn't mean that it exists. " I observe that the vast majority of living things demonstrate a desire to live. " Whole desire is based on evolution. If they wouldn't want to survive they wouldn't even exists in the first place. They would've died out long time ago. With your reasoning virus or bacteria has a desire to live. Also morality isn't based on desires. If you're going to make that argument you would be justifying all the psychopaths who enjoy hurting others. "What you've described is the reality that everyone can have an opinion on anything." Literally nothing to do with my comment. Everyone can have opinion on anything. That doesn't make it into a fact nor truth. I never said that everyone's point of view is equally valid. Simply pointed out problems of your argument. Also after reading the conversation again to refresh my memory. It's pretty clear that you're attempting to side track from the main issue. You pretty much changed your whole argument's position without realizing that it matches the thing I were saying since beginning while you forgot your initial purpose. Where you totally didn't give a fuck about context of an action. Where you thought that morals are absolute and context doesn't matter. Where you tried to make human life equal to another animals.
1
BobWidlefish "This is incorrect. I pointed out that a fully worked system of ethics could work in all contexts. What you referred to as "different" ethics could just be different branches on a single fully worked system of ethics." No you didn't. You see the originally your comment to other person, you disregarded the fact that morality isn't that simple. You made it moral absolute that in no situation killing a child would be moral. Until I made comment pointing out that killing a child can be moral act. "This is incorrect. I use various comparison to animals to try and get others to check their assumptions about what makes humans special." Pretty much same as trying to make them look like equal. " Early in this thread I said that I think what makes humans different has something to do with our ability to experience things, our consciousness." Literally no evidence existing that humans experience things differently. " I believe moral weight is a continuum according to consciousness, not a binary thing that clearly divides humans from non-humans." What you define as consciousness? Since it's very relative term.
1
BobWidlefish Please cut the bullshit and go straight to the point. I don't like to read wall of text which has very little insight hidden inside of it. It tells a lot what kind of a person you are and it's far from being honest and humble. "You claimed ethics changed by context, and I responded by pointing out that a single fully worked system of ethics could handle all contexts" this is where you changed whole thing. You try to make case that there is absolute rules like Killing is always wrong. You're trying to twist the meanings and the context to fit your agenda. This is why I despise people like you who make huge long wall of text while trying to hide their actual point. "Thought experiments are good for teasing out subtle differences in edge cases. " IT's not experiment when you claim something as absolute truth. You should've brought question forward if you want people to consider something, instead of saying "you're wrong and this what I just said is right". " Certainly there is. Some animals are colorblind" And what that has to do anything with morality? You were perfectly aware of the context yet you decided to nitpick. Yet you wonder why I think you're dishonest person. Trying to quote mine sentence out of context is very shitty thing to do. Having different senses doesn't mean that they don't exists in same existence, hence experience the world around them. The world we all live in is the same objective experience. Even if you don't feel the pain you can still be cutted down. " It's a suitcase term that refers to many different mental activities that don't have a single cause or origin." Then don't use it if you're not even capable of giving your own definition about it. "By this kind of definition consciousness is sentience, the capacity for subjective experience. " Even a fucking tree has capacity to subject experience. It's different thing does it has it's mind of it's own. Your definition of consciousness is terrible. Because it's too vague and broad. You're basically trying to make argument here that the being who has most sense and sensors in them is the most consciousness one. Which itself is fucking stupid idea. Even if you're capable of seeing everything that happens in the world. It doesn't mean that you're capable of understand it or understand yourself. In fact you might not even think at all.
1
BobWidlefish Not angry, just just prefer to cut the bullshit, but good to know that you weren't capable addressing my points.
1
BobWidlefish So far you haven proven the opposite of everything you say.
1
Suffering isn't the way to go. What if someone can't feel pain? With this reasoning humans who are unable to feel pain or emotional suffering should've no rights. Whole bullshit debunked this easily.
1