What makes something/someone entitled to human rights?

Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
What makes something/someone entitled to human rights?

Let's say aliens came to visit Earth and we ended up sharing the planet together. Do we treat them with the same human rights as another Earthling?

What about a robot that thinks, feels (emotions), and acts exactly the same way as humans?

Or what if we discover that dolphins are just like humans too?

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ideally all life should be

Ideally all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
It would depend on how

It would depend on how different they are from us. What if we compare ourselves to the aliens and find we have the short end of the genetic stick? Probably better to stay diplomatic just in case.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Ideally all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life.
What about ants that we accidentally step on? Or harmless bacteria we inadvertently kill when we are cleaning our mirrors with Windex?

You say, "ideally," but how much do you say humans, yourself included, should value this ideal? To the point where we watch every footstep we take and we cease all Windex practices?

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
The more like "us" something

The more like "us" something is; the more likely we are to give it the same rights as "us". Europeans defined it as white for a long time. Now, we call it all Homo Sapiens. We even will treat dogs with some set of rights. Dogs are like us, they are pack animals. But ants aren't so much like us; so, they don't get rights. Bacteria are like religions: you can wipe them away but they readily return.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote:

Nero wrote:
The more like "us" something is; the more likely we are to give it the same rights as "us". Europeans defined it as white for a long time. Now, we call it all Homo Sapiens. We even will treat dogs with some set of rights. Dogs are like us, they are pack animals. But ants aren't so much like us; so, they don't get rights. Bacteria are like religions: you can wipe them away but they readily return.
This sounds like a possibly reasonable guideline at first glance. Does this guideline include man-made robots whom are just like us?

What about outerspace aliens whom/that contend they are more "advanced" than we are, thus deserving more rights? Should we acqueise in the name of consistent logic or should we fight for our rights in the name of survival/species-centric freedom (please note that I'm not saying that these are the only 2 options...just musing)?

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I would say that the key to

I would say that the key to "personhood" and thus the rights that one obtains is sentience. Kind of utilitarian, I know, but the capacity to experience pain and suffering along with self-awareness are the fundamental differences between those to whom we grant "rights" and those to whom we do not.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: I would say

kellym78 wrote:
I would say that the key to "personhood" and thus the rights that one obtains is sentience. Kind of utilitarian, I know, but the capacity to experience pain and suffering along with self-awareness are the fundamental differences between those to whom we grant "rights" and those to whom we do not.
Some people say chimps, dolphins, and elephants are sentient and share the capacity to experience pain and suffering.  Does this mean we also grant these guys the same rights as us?


 

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
What I base my thoughts on

What I base my thoughts on is a piece of work by David Hume. He just says that we sympathize most closely with those who are more like ourselves. Thus, we are most concerned about friends, then strangers, then foreigners, then mammals, etc.

So, if the aliens are like us, we would sympathize. There isn't more than human rights though. I would be damned if I would worship someone because they dropped out of the sky (bird crap does the same thing). So, we might be really polite but the same rights would apply (assuming we aren't slaves).

AI is a hard field to discuss. I felt bad for HAL in 2001, but don't feel bad for dumping an old computer. I guess if the AI and I spoke a lot, maybe I would feel for it. At the moment I can only imagine it based on my love for my television. *shrug*

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Interesting question.  We

Interesting question.  We obviously give our pet cats and dogs more rights than street animals.  And most people 'give more rights' to their dogs and cats than their hermit crabs and goldfish.

 


unRogers
unRogers's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-04-03
User is offlineOffline
I think what you seem to be

I think what you seem to be asking in a roundabout way is how to defeine consciousness; which I know I'm going to get called on.

 For the most part I tend to throw my hat in with the 'personhood' ideal, even though that gets tossed around a lot. The ability to experience suffering (physical or emotional), the awareness of suffering (that outside of the self as well as aware itself can experience suffering), and self-awareness of its own mortality usually does it for me.

WWTFSMDFAKB?


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I am around homo sapiens

I am around homo sapiens everyday who do not fit this: "The ability to experience suffering (physical or emotional), the awareness of suffering (that outside of the self as well as aware itself can experience suffering), and self-awareness of its own mortality usually does it for me."

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

kellym78 wrote:
I would say that the key to "personhood" and thus the rights that one obtains is sentience. Kind of utilitarian, I know, but the capacity to experience pain and suffering along with self-awareness are the fundamental differences between those to whom we grant "rights" and those to whom we do not.
Some people say chimps, dolphins, and elephants are sentient and share the capacity to experience pain and suffering. Does this mean we also grant these guys the same rights as us?


 

In that case, self-awareness would be the kicker. That means the ability to differentiate oneself from others and to conceive of this self as being on a linear timeline with both past and future.  Most animals, even other so-called "sentient" ones, do not have the ability (to our knowledge) to understand and fear their own non-existence or death. Lots of animals experience pain and suffering, but they don't have a sufficiently developed cerebral cortex to attain the capacity for self-awareness as is described here.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: What I base my

Nero wrote:
What I base my thoughts on is a piece of work by David Hume. He just says that we sympathize most closely with those who are more like ourselves. Thus, we are most concerned about friends, then strangers, then foreigners, then mammals, etc. So, if the aliens are like us, we would sympathize.

I don't disagree that we sympathize/empathize with members of our own "in-group" more than others, but that isn't really the point. Observing that fact of human behavior does not apply when we are talking about the distribution of basic rights. If blacks/gays/women/atheists are not members of a person's group, would that justify their being denied basic rights? I don't imagine that anybody is promoting that viewpoint, but the analogy here is false because they are different issues entirely. We need to be analyzing the concept of personhood from more than a subjective in or out-group mentality so that as a society we don't fall into the same kinds of thinking that spawned so many atrocities in the past.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I don't disagree that we

Kellym78 wrote:

 

I don't disagree that we sympathize/empathize with members of our own "in-group" more than others, but that isn't really the point. Observing that fact of human behavior does not apply when we are talking about the distribution of basic rights. If blacks/gays/women/atheists are not members of a person's group, would that justify their being denied basic rights? I don't imagine that anybody is promoting that viewpoint, but the analogy here is false because they are different issues entirely. We need to be analyzing the concept of personhood from more than a subjective in or out-group mentality so that as a society we don't fall into the same kinds of thinking that spawned so many atrocities in the past.

I must beg to differ with the lady, at my own risk. Smiling I suggest that to say the ability to conceive a linear timeline is what gives us "personhood" is to damn infants, mentally ill people and developmentally challenged people to a life without rights. In the Humean philosophy, we might sympathize more strongly with those like us, but we also sympathize with those quite different. I would give my dog the same rights I give humans. She is more intelligent than most and sympathizes more readily. I also recognize those without the ability to reason and understand as fully as we to have inalienable rights as well. So, what is unnerving is that this necessary subjectivity relies on a majority of people being broadly sympathetic.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote:

Nero wrote:
So, if the aliens are like us, we would sympathize. There isn't more than human rights though. I would be damned if I would worship someone because they dropped out of the sky (bird crap does the same thing). So, we might be really polite but the same rights would apply (assuming we aren't slaves).

Perhaps I asked the wrong question. Rather, what if these aliens contend that they are more "advanced" than we are, thus they are the true entitlers of these rights and we are to be treated "inferiorally" like the way we treat dolphins, dogs, or even maybe cattle? And no, I'm not an animals rights activist lol.

Nero wrote:
AI is a hard field to discuss. I felt bad for HAL in 2001, but don't feel bad for dumping an old computer. I guess if the AI and I spoke a lot, maybe I would feel for it. At the moment I can only imagine it based on my love for my television. *shrug*

A question that perfectly human-like (e.g. possessing the same emotions, conscience, cognition, self-awareness, etc.) man-made AI made me ask is: Just exactly how different are we from computers (other than our biological nature)? If our thought processes, emotions, conscious, etc. are all defined by our synapses, are we to then compare OR contrast human-like robots by the biological value of their circuitry? And this biological value determining whether this circuitry can be likened to our conscious/emotively/cognitively defining synapses?

If we find (and assuming we are willing to accept) that humans and perfectly human-like robots only differ by origin, is that enough reason to withhold them these rights? And I now say "origin" instead of "biological value" because I now realize that robots could theoretically be created biologically/organically, but the fact remains that they are still man-made. I suppose I should revise my earlier bold-faced question to: Just exactly how different are we from computers (other than our origins)?

I'm sure we can think of various films that revolve around human-like robots or andriods that rebel against humanity because of their unhumane treatment. One of the worst movies ever, "Bicentennial Man," particularly attempted an answer to this question (now the one bold-faced in red).

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Ideally all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life.
What about ants that we accidentally step on? Or harmless bacteria we inadvertently kill when we are cleaning our mirrors with Windex?

What about them? Noones asking you to spend every waking moment of your life being aware of every molecule around you and making sure you don't disturb them.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
You say, "ideally," but how much do you say humans, yourself included, should value this ideal? To the point where we watch every footstep we take and we cease all Windex practices?

Obviously not. Shit happens. Life dies. Are you suggesting we should make war on every life form in existance? How far do you want to take your ignorance of the life around you?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Before I go on, do you guys

Before I go on, do you guys think this is generally more of a utilitarian or ethical issue?  I wonder if that might in anyway help with this topic.  And just in case anyone is wondering my intent, I'm only musing in an attempt to find a truth.  I started this thread for the sole purpose of investigating.  Hopefully no bias.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Andyy wrote: Interesting

Andyy wrote:


Interesting question. We obviously give our pet cats and dogs more rights than street animals. And most people 'give more rights' to their dogs and cats than their hermit crabs and goldfish.
Good point!  Smiling  This begs the questions:

1. Do we also grant these "things" (apologies to all pet owners for my insensitivity lol) more rights because of their domestication or because of their perceived closeness to us?  Of course, even this question might vary individually, but this inconsistency begs more questions.

2. If these rights are granted inconsistently (e.g. dogs that live in our houses are treated better than dogs that live on the streets), should we worry that we apply these rights with prejudice?

3. Regarding #2, if it is indeed prejudiced, should we not worry because these rights are human species-centric-ally utilitarian (as opposed to ethical)?

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
unRogers wrote: I think

unRogers wrote:

I think what you seem to be asking in a roundabout way is how to defeine consciousness; which I know I'm going to get called on.

I think it's possible the topic might ultimately converge on consciousness, but as of now, I see it going in many other possible directions.

Also, I would like to know what the devil "WWTFSMDFAKB" stands for lol.  I think I got "what would the fuck" part down, but that's about it haha.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:

kellym78 wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

kellym78 wrote:
I would say that the key to "personhood" and thus the rights that one obtains is sentience. Kind of utilitarian, I know, but the capacity to experience pain and suffering along with self-awareness are the fundamental differences between those to whom we grant "rights" and those to whom we do not.
Some people say chimps, dolphins, and elephants are sentient and share the capacity to experience pain and suffering. Does this mean we also grant these guys the same rights as us?

In that case, self-awareness would be the kicker. That means the ability to differentiate oneself from others and to conceive of this self as being on a linear timeline with both past and future. Most animals, even other so-called "sentient" ones, do not have the ability (to our knowledge) to understand and fear their own non-existence or death. Lots of animals experience pain and suffering, but they don't have a sufficiently developed cerebral cortex to attain the capacity for self-awareness as is described here.

I'm not going to verify whether "self-awareness would be the kicker," not because I'm lazy (even if I am lol), but simply because I think I see your point: We can assume that human beings are indeed "significantly" different from and superior to dolphins and chimps (other than the obvious taxonomical and etymological reasons); thus the point is whatever this unique XYZ trait is that superiorizes human beings, it follows then that we can assign all of these rights based on this XYZ trait alone (for obvious utilitarian reasons, and not so obvious ethical reasons, if the latter of which EVEN exists).

Whether there really is an XYZ trait (and thus substantiating the assumption) is beyond the demands of my laziness, but given what I know, this "self-awareness kick" does sound pretty reasonable at first glance. Yes, I know that's a cop out lol.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Ideally all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life.
What about ants that we accidentally step on? Or harmless bacteria we inadvertently kill when we are cleaning our mirrors with Windex?
What about them? Noones asking you to spend every waking moment of your life being aware of every molecule around you and making sure you don't disturb them.

If you say that "all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life," then we can't be selective with whom/what and when we can observe these rights. If single-celled bacterium are to be subjected to the same rights as human beings, are we to not tolerate inadvertent killing of harmless bacteria (e.g. with Windex) like we do not tolerate inadvertent killing of human beings? See how my original questions point to the problem of your ideal?

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
You say, "ideally," but how much do you say humans, yourself included, should value this ideal? To the point where we watch every footstep we take and we cease all Windex practices?
Obviously not. Shit happens. Life dies. Are you suggesting we should make war on every life form in existance? How far do you want to take your ignorance of the life around you?

You are not understanding my point. I illustrate the extravagantly impossible demands of your ideal not as concession or as problem-saving steps, but as a rebuttal. Also see above reply.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Just exactly how different are we from computers (other than our origins)?

Now, I'd like to further compound the problem: What if we are to discover that human beings were originally created by another intelligent life-form? In a way, human-beings are then "man"-made too (this "man" being this other intelligent life-form). Should we still withhold perfectly human-like robots these rights because they weren't made by these other intelligent life-forms, or because they were only made by us?

These questions are making me lean away from the ethical and towards the utilitarian intent of human rights. If this is the case, I think maybe human rights are described as ethical efforts to mask the less glamorous utilitarian truth.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Ideally all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life.
What about ants that we accidentally step on? Or harmless bacteria we inadvertently kill when we are cleaning our mirrors with Windex?
What about them? Noones asking you to spend every waking moment of your life being aware of every molecule around you and making sure you don't disturb them.

If you say that "all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life," then we can't be selective with whom/what and when we can observe these rights.

Sure we can. It's called physical limits. The day you are capable of being aware of every thing around you is the day you can be expected to have no negative effect on anything around you. Unless your own right to exist is compromised as a result.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
If single-celled bacterium are to be subjected to the same rights as human beings, are we to not tolerate inadvertent killing of harmless bacteria (e.g. with Windex) like we do not tolerate inadvertent killing of human beings? See how my original questions point to the problem of your ideal?

No. You're assuming that the bacteria don't have the right to go where they want to. If they put themselves in a hazardous scenario then it's their problem. We shouldn't however knowingly and willingly commit mass murder when there's no reason to.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
You are not understanding my point.

Double edged sword.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I illustrate the extravagantly impossible demands of your ideal not as concession or as problem-saving steps, but as a rebuttal. Also see above reply.

Your extremism is not a rebuttal to common sense. Try again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Ideally all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life.
What about ants that we accidentally step on? Or harmless bacteria we inadvertently kill when we are cleaning our mirrors with Windex?
What about them? Noones asking you to spend every waking moment of your life being aware of every molecule around you and making sure you don't disturb them.

If you say that "all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life," then we can't be selective with whom/what and when we can observe these rights.

Sure we can. It's called physical limits. The day you are capable of being aware of every thing around you is the day you can be expected to have no negative effect on anything around you. Unless your own right to exist is compromised as a result.

Physical limits is at least part of the reason why this ideal is impossible.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
If single-celled bacterium are to be subjected to the same rights as human beings, are we to not tolerate inadvertent killing of harmless bacteria (e.g. with Windex) like we do not tolerate inadvertent killing of human beings? See how my original questions point to the problem of your ideal?
No. You're assuming that the bacteria don't have the right to go where they want to. If they put themselves in a hazardous scenario then it's their problem. We shouldn't however knowingly and willingly commit mass murder when there's no reason to.

Actually, you're assuming that the bacteria could not have any life-threatening reason to be on a mirror (not to mention not considering the physical limits [and uncontrollable tendencies] of bacteria). You also seem to be suggesting (and I know you get real sensitive and confused between accusation and pointing out conflicting ideas, so I'm going to emphasize that this suggestion is strictly perceived as inadvertent) that cleaning mirrors with Windex has higher precendence than voluntary mass murder. EVEN if these millions of bacterium irrationally situated themselves on a mirror (which, of course is an irrational conception to begin with because bacteria do not have the capacity to make rational/irrational decisions, but you seem to not mind completely ignoring the physical limits and uncontrollable tendencies of bacteria "if they put themselves in a hazardous scenario[, thus] it's their problem" ), it would be an atrocity to kill millions because we think that our right to clean a mirror so we can see which pimple to pop is more important than the rights of these millions.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
You are not understanding my point.
Double edged sword.
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I illustrate the extravagantly impossible demands of your ideal not as concession or as problem-saving steps, but as a rebuttal. Also see above reply.
Your extremism is not a rebuttal to common sense. Try again.

You fail to explain other than your feelings.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Ideally all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life.
What about ants that we accidentally step on? Or harmless bacteria we inadvertently kill when we are cleaning our mirrors with Windex?
What about them? Noones asking you to spend every waking moment of your life being aware of every molecule around you and making sure you don't disturb them.

If you say that "all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life," then we can't be selective with whom/what and when we can observe these rights.

Sure we can. It's called physical limits. The day you are capable of being aware of every thing around you is the day you can be expected to have no negative effect on anything around you. Unless your own right to exist is compromised as a result.

Physical limits is at least part of the reason why this ideal is impossible.

Only if you hold that it should be followed with rigidity. Which makes any discussion on rights a moot subject. What stops you from accidentally killing a person? What if you accidentally kill someone by dropping something on their head even if you didn't know you did or intend to do it in the first place? What if you contract a disease without being aware of it and spread it to others? Should you go to jail for that? Should you be executed? Of course not. Mistakes happen. This applies universally.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Actually, you're assuming that the bacteria could not have any life-threatening reason to be on a mirror (not to mention not considering the physical limits [and uncontrollable tendencies] of bacteria).

No I'm not. I don't blame a cave for being full of methane that kills someone if they run into it while being chased by a bear. It's still the person who chose to run into the cave, and not the caves fault for being poisonous. You would remove responsibility for actions from the individual who makes those actions.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
You also seem to be suggesting (and I know you get real sensitive and confused between accusation and pointing out conflicting ideas, so I'm going to emphasize that this suggestion is strictly perceived as inadvertent) that cleaning mirrors with Windex has higher precendence than voluntary mass murder.

If cleaning a mirror can be done without killing things(and it can) than that should be the preffered option sure. Why should you have the right to destroy life just so your hair looks a bit better?

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
EVEN if these millions of bacterium irrationally situated themselves on a mirror (which, of course is an irrational conception to begin with because bacteria do not have the capacity to make rational/irrational decisions, but you seem to not mind completely ignoring the physical limits and uncontrollable tendencies of bacteria "if they put themselves in a hazardous scenario[, thus] it's their problem&quotEye-wink, it would be an atrocity to kill millions because we think that our right to clean a mirror so we can see which pimple to pop is more important than the rights of these millions.

You can clean the mirror without killing all the bacteria, so their positioning and reason for it is frankly irrelevant. You are killing life for mere convenience. Worse, since it's not actually convenient. You have to go out and buy some Windex, when the water comes straight from the tap.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
You are not understanding my point.
Double edged sword.
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I illustrate the extravagantly impossible demands of your ideal not as concession or as problem-saving steps, but as a rebuttal. Also see above reply.
Your extremism is not a rebuttal to common sense. Try again.

You fail to explain other than your feelings.

You presuppose and assume and infer and accuse me of failing to explain your strawman bullshit? How amusing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Ideally all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life.
What about ants that we accidentally step on? Or harmless bacteria we inadvertently kill when we are cleaning our mirrors with Windex?
What about them? Noones asking you to spend every waking moment of your life being aware of every molecule around you and making sure you don't disturb them.

If you say that "all life should be subject to the same rights as all other life," then we can't be selective with whom/what and when we can observe these rights.

Sure we can. It's called physical limits. The day you are capable of being aware of every thing around you is the day you can be expected to have no negative effect on anything around you. Unless your own right to exist is compromised as a result.

Physical limits is at least part of the reason why this ideal is impossible.

Only if you hold that it should be followed with rigidity. Which makes any discussion on rights a moot subject. What stops you from accidentally killing a person? What if you accidentally kill someone by dropping something on their head even if you didn't know you did or intend to do it in the first place? What if you contract a disease without being aware of it and spread it to others? Should you go to jail for that? Should you be executed? Of course not. Mistakes happen. This applies universally.

The fact that your ideal doesn't work without inconsistency proves that it's impossible. That is the point you seem to keep missing.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Actually, you're assuming that the bacteria could not have any life-threatening reason to be on a mirror (not to mention not considering the physical limits [and uncontrollable tendencies] of bacteria).
No I'm not. I don't blame a cave for being full of methane that kills someone if they run into it while being chased by a bear. It's still the person who chose to run into the cave, and not the caves fault for being poisonous. You would remove responsibility for actions from the individual who makes those actions.

This is a false analogy. Firstly, the cave is not entitled to any rights in accordance to your ideal since it's not a living thing. Secondly, the person's death was caused by proaction. The death of the bacteria in my mirror scenario is caused by the proaction of another living thing.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
You also seem to be suggesting (and I know you get real sensitive and confused between accusation and pointing out conflicting ideas, so I'm going to emphasize that this suggestion is strictly perceived as inadvertent) that cleaning mirrors with Windex has higher precendence than voluntary mass murder.
If cleaning a mirror can be done without killing things(and it can) than that should be the preffered option sure. Why should you have the right to destroy life just so your hair looks a bit better?

Now you're beginning to realize the inconsistencies and conflicts that would inevitably challenge the cogency of your ideal. How do you know that whatever cleaning solution you have won't harm or at least force the bacteria to give up their rights for your right to stare at the mirror (e.g. this kind of bacteria can only survive on glass surfaces in bathroom environments)? I can forever create more scenarios that will be impossible to reconcile without compromising one living thing's "equal rights."

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
EVEN if these millions of bacterium irrationally situated themselves on a mirror (which, of course is an irrational conception to begin with because bacteria do not have the capacity to make rational/irrational decisions, but you seem to not mind completely ignoring the physical limits and uncontrollable tendencies of bacteria "if they put themselves in a hazardous scenario[, thus] it's their problem&quotEye-wink, it would be an atrocity to kill millions because we think that our right to clean a mirror so we can see which pimple to pop is more important than the rights of these millions.
You can clean the mirror without killing all the bacteria, so their positioning and reason for it is frankly irrelevant. You are killing life for mere convenience. Worse, since it's not actually convenient. You have to go out and buy some Windex, when the water comes straight from the tap.

See above reply.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
You are not understanding my point.
Double edged sword.
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I illustrate the extravagantly impossible demands of your ideal not as concession or as problem-saving steps, but as a rebuttal. Also see above reply.
Your extremism is not a rebuttal to common sense. Try again.

You fail to explain other than your feelings.

You presuppose and assume and infer and accuse me of failing to explain your strawman bullshit? How amusing.

You fail to explain other than your feelings.

 

P.S. What's truly amusing is how you take all this so personally. Chill and relax.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal wrote: The

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
The fact that your ideal doesn't work without inconsistency proves that it's impossible. That is the point you seem to keep missing.

No ideal works without inconsitancy, so you've failed to say anything of value so far. That is the point you keep missing.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
This is a false analogy.

No it isn't.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Firstly, the cave is not entitled to any rights in accordance to your ideal since it's not a living thing.

Irrelevant. It is not being accorded any rights by my analogy, it simply exists in nature as a hazard to life.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Secondly, the person's death was caused by proaction. The death of the bacteria in my mirror scenario is caused by the proaction of another living thing.

Incorrect. The bacteria in your mirror scenario die due to two factors, not one. It's due to the bacteria being present on the window, AND due to the window cleaner cleaning it. The minor modification of the gas in the cave being there as a result of past or present activity of a life form would counter your rebuttal.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Now you're beginning to realize the inconsistencies and conflicts that would inevitably challenge the cogency of your ideal.

I'm not realizing anything. You laid out a scenario and I answered it. Your intellectual backflips put a smile on my face.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
How do you know that whatever cleaning solution you have won't harm or at least force the bacteria to give up their rights for your right to stare at the mirror (e.g. this kind of bacteria can only survive on glass surfaces in bathroom environments)?

Show me a bacteria that can only live on glass or in bathroom environments, otherwise I have no need to answer this.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I can forever create more scenarios that will be impossible to reconcile without compromising one living thing's "equal rights."

And they'd all be as false as the first, and would equally apply to any scenario of rights, including human rights.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

See above reply.

Right back at you.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
You fail to explain other than your feelings.

Read my last post. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
P.S. What's truly amusing is how you take all this so personally. Chill and relax.

Maybe if you'd give me the common courtesy to ask for clarification or specifics you'd be entitled to request this. As it is you've approached me with ridicule, so I will return it right back. Don't be a hypocrite. I don't tolerate hypocrites.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
The fact that your ideal doesn't work without inconsistency proves that it's impossible. That is the point you seem to keep missing.
No ideal works without inconsitancy, so you've failed to say anything of value so far. That is the point you keep missing.

Ideal is defined by perfection. Inconsistency is not perfection. False by contradiction.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
This is a false analogy.
No it isn't.

Did you really feel the need to isolate this quote just so you can say you disagree lol?

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Firstly, the cave is not entitled to any rights in accordance to your ideal since it's not a living thing.
Irrelevant. It is not being accorded any rights by my analogy, it simply exists in nature as a hazard to life.

That's exactly my point. I was not contending whether you were according the cave any rights; I was contending that since the cave is not accorded any rights, it's not analogous with the human being in my mirror scenario. Strawman.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Secondly, the person's death was caused by proaction. The death of the bacteria in my mirror scenario is caused by the proaction of another living thing.
Incorrect. The bacteria in your mirror scenario die due to two factors, not one. It's due to the bacteria being present on the window, AND due to the window cleaner cleaning it. The minor modification of the gas in the cave being there as a result of past or present activity of a life form would counter your rebuttal.

Firstly, You're not addressing my point of contention. In your cave example, the person's death was caused an action he made (proaction). In my mirror example, the bacteria's death was NOT caused by an action they made; rather, it was caused by an action by another living thing (the other living thing's proaction). Thus, false analogy and strawman.

Secondly, Death by being present on a mirror is a non sequitur. You may increase your chances of death, but being on a mirror doesn't kill you.

Thirdly, death by Windex is another reason why your analogy is false. The things compared do not match up feature for feature (e.g. one accords rights while another doesn't, and one dies by one's own proaction while another dies by the other's proaction).

Fourthly, your "minor modication" does not address the challenge. Strawman.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Now you're beginning to realize the inconsistencies and conflicts that would inevitably challenge the cogency of your ideal.
I'm not realizing anything. You laid out a scenario and I answered it. Your intellectual backflips put a smile on my face.

Thank you for constantly reminding me how emotionally unaffected you are for the umpteenth time lol.

P.S. I think you missed my point, and that being that you aren't even aware that you are frequently inadvertently attacking your own arguments while thinking you are attacking me. Smiling

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
How do you know that whatever cleaning solution you have won't harm or at least force the bacteria to give up their rights for your right to stare at the mirror (e.g. this kind of bacteria can only survive on glass surfaces in bathroom environments)?
Show me a bacteria that can only live on glass or in bathroom environments, otherwise I have no need to answer this.

That's not the point. There are practically countless ways human beings could accidentally and unavoidably unrightfully infringe on other organisms' rights. If you need examples, let me know.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I can forever create more scenarios that will be impossible to reconcile without compromising one living thing's "equal rights."
And they'd all be as false as the first, and would equally apply to any scenario of rights, including human rights.

Show me where you disprove my example.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
See above reply.
Right back at you.

Did you really feel it was important enough to quote this just so you can make a snappy e-remark to an absolutely benign comment?

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
You fail to explain other than your feelings.
Read my last post. I'm not going to repeat myself.

"Right back at me?" That doesn't make sense. I pointed out how expressing your emotions makes no logical contribution in an effort to resteer the debate and you say "right back at me?" WTF lol.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
P.S. What's truly amusing is how you take all this so personally. Chill and relax.
Maybe if you'd give me the common courtesy to ask for clarification or specifics you'd be entitled to request this. As it is you've approached me with ridicule, so I will return it right back. Don't be a hypocrite. I don't tolerate hypocrites.

I don't think I ever approached you with ridicule (go ahead, browse through this thread and see who started talking shit lmao), but I can see how an insecure person might interpret simple contention as such. Strawman! lol

 

P.S. More examples of your insecure inflammatory, overly-defensive mentality is strewn all over this thread. You can even just examine his last post - what's with this guy constantly reminding us how emotionally cool he is and him responding so snappily to such benign comments? Maybe this "Gaming God" is suffering from World of Warcraft withdrawal lol.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Ideal is defined by perfection.

No it isn't.

"An ideal is a principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal."

Come back when you learn how to use the words you're talking with.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Inconsistency is not perfection. False by contradiction.

Perfection is not the goal. False by strawman fallacy.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
That's exactly my point. I was not contending whether you were according the cave any rights; I was contending that since the cave is not accorded any rights, it's not analogous with the human being in my mirror scenario. Strawman.

This is not an answer to my response. Try again.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Firstly, You're not addressing my point of contention. ~~~~

Bald faced lie. My minor modification blows your entire response out of the water. Before you even made it. Try again.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Thank you for constantly reminding me how emotionally unaffected you are for the umpteenth time lol.

Thanks for admitting you're incapable of responding to my posts without ad hominem attacks yet again. Proving once more that you are fallacious and irrational.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
P.S. I think you missed my point,

Look in the mirror.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
and that being that you aren't even aware that you are frequently inadvertently attacking your own arguments while thinking you are attacking me. Smiling

You haven't even made a valid argument yet. Are you sure you aren't a theist? Quite frankly, I'm done with your brainless idiocy. I don't often consider people to be so idiotic as to be a waste of my time to deal with, but congratulations for fitting squarely into that range. A brainless moron can remain a brainless moron. I'm ignoring your stupidity from now on.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Ideal is defined by perfection.

No it isn't. "An ideal is a principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal." Come back when you learn how to use the words you're talking with.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideal

Strawman! Strawman strawman strawman!! lol

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Inconsistency is not perfection. False by contradiction.
Perfection is not the goal. False by strawman fallacy.

See above reply. Strawman! lol


Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
That's exactly my point. I was not contending whether you were according the cave any rights; I was contending that since the cave is not accorded any rights, it's not analogous with the human being in my mirror scenario. Strawman.
This is not an answer to my response. Try again.

There's no need to answer a strawman! If you can prove that your argument was not a strawman, then I'll answer.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Firstly, You're not addressing my point of contention. ~~~~
Bald faced lie. My minor modification blows your entire response out of the water. Before you even made it. Try again.

Lie? I am glad you are psychic!

"My minor modification blows your entire response out of the water." As I said, your minor modication is the other reason why your analogy is false. Do you even know what a false analogy is, let alone an analogy? Argument from personal conviction! lol

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Thank you for constantly reminding me how emotionally unaffected you are for the umpteenth time lol.
Thanks for admitting you're incapable of responding to my posts without ad hominem attacks yet again. Proving once more that you are fallacious and irrational.

That's not an admittance to anything. That's me pointing out how you are overcompensating for your insecurity by feeling the need to constantly try to convince us that you're cool, calm, collected, and confident (like that alliteration by the way?). It's all very transparent, but I suppose it's not for you since that's part of your coping mechanism. Also, any kind of admittance of ad hominem does not prove one's fallaciousness or irrationality; one could theoretically be both at the same time. Appeal to ignorance! lol

P.S. Do you like Cinnamon Toast Crunch? My favorite cereal...yummy! Smiling

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
P.S. I think you missed my point,
Look in the mirror.

lol

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
and that being that you aren't even aware that you are frequently inadvertently attacking your own arguments while thinking you are attacking me. Smiling
You haven't even made a valid argument yet. Are you sure you aren't a theist? Quite frankly, I'm done with your brainless idiocy. I don't often consider people to be so idiotic as to be a waste of my time to deal with, but congratulations for fitting squarely into that range. A brainless moron can remain a brainless moron. I'm ignoring your stupidity from now on.

lol

Of all your raging posts, this is probably your most telling. Look at the extreme bottled-up rage he has against theists. So much hate! Ladies and gentlemen, I think this is an example of how people attack what they don't understand or fear.

 

P.S. Ready as always for your next response! Unless, of course, you already know that most people who read our debate would not laugh at your failure to grasp basic, fundamental logic. Debating with these types of people are always predictably hilarious. It's like their life depends on convincing themselves that they are intellectual masters, and the slightest challenge to their reality sends them screaming and howling. I mean, look at this guy's reply to my first reply! This modestly self-proclaimed "Enlightened Atheist" and World of Warcraft "Gaming God" (if you don't know what I mean, check out his hot signature lol) is clearly more concerned about preserving his ego than proving/defending the truth.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person