babyfinland posted:
The movie's creators apparently filmed this scene on the knowledge that such footage would shock an audience that was sensitive to animals.
nice autistic detective work wikipedia
babyfinland posted:
the animal passes out and dies before it registers any pain. science fact. there's a reason that huge swathes of people perform slaughter this way and its not because they are cowed into superstition by their Stupid Parents
i would think that maybe being a 400+ pound creature hung upside down by its legs might cause some discomfort even before the whole blade part as evidenced by the thrashing and screaming they do both pre- and post-blade but who am i to argue with the scientific record of Dude Talked to Magic Hawkman
xipe posted:
enlightened, rational societies are so much better than those backwards religious ones
yeah factory farming is bad but its only comparative saving grace is that its execution style is lightyears ahead of what was, to be fair, a relatively ethical way of slaughtering innocent creatures for no good reason back in the year 3
tpaine posted:
fucking horse looked at me wrong. gotta chop its cloven hoofes in half now! sigh...its hard being pious
Horses don't have cloven hooves. Wow. It's like you don't know anything about equestry.
goopstein posted:
Just cuz a thing looks like it's suffering, sounds like it's suffering, has the same physiological wiring for suffering, and would have evolved the capacity for suffering long before and for exactly the same reasons as me doesn't mean it's 'suffering.' I'm a psychopath btw
a thing without consciousness cannot suffer in a sense that would be meaningful to us. most animals (save humans, the other great apes, some cetaceans, elephants, and probably a handful of corvids) are not conscious as far as we can tell. the universe doesn't give a fuck if an animals reason for running away is f(x)>y or "ow ow fuck that hurts!" even a bacteria will retreat from stimulus that is dangerous to it.
Cycloneboy posted:goopstein posted:
Just cuz a thing looks like it's suffering, sounds like it's suffering, has the same physiological wiring for suffering, and would have evolved the capacity for suffering long before and for exactly the same reasons as me doesn't mean it's 'suffering.' I'm a psychopath btwa thing without consciousness cannot suffer in a sense that would be meaningful to us. most animals (save humans, the other great apes, some cetaceans, elephants, and probably a handful of corvids) are not conscious as far as we can tell. the universe doesn't give a fuck if an animals reason for running away is f(x)>y or "ow ow fuck that hurts!" even a bacteria will retreat from stimulus that is dangerous to it.
more sophism?? from cycloneman?? *monocle lodges into monitor which is then sprayed with mountain dew good sir*
a thing without consciousness, which i have not defined, cannot suffer in a sense that would be meaningful to us. what is meaningful to us is immutable and defined by me. most animals (save a list of some that are physiologically virtually no different from most mammals especially when it comes to nociception) are not conscious in a way we can tell, despite many of them having discernible memories, unique personalities, emotions, capacity for learning, sensory organs, ability to understand a few words, and empathy.
truly, what is consciousness? apparently a thing i have to define, for a moron.
i can easily program a computer to have all of those things that you listed. *throws computer into fire, is a "murderer"*
the universe doesn't give a fuck if an animals reason for running away is f(x)>y or "ow ow fuck that hurts," because the universe cares about things, we are able to determine what the universe cares about, it certainly cares what a human's reason for running away is, and as such our morality is based on what the universe cares about not what human beings have decided is right or wrong.
this is meaningless bullshit where you purposefully misinterpret my point?? possibly because you're full of shit?? (ps, humans are animals)
lemme sum up the whole "what does the universe give a fuck about" in a sentence that you might be able to understand, in your limited intelligence: a p-zombie is exactly as evolutionarily effective as a human, but deserves none of the moral consideration.
even a bacteria, which is a member of the kingdom animalia for sure, will retreat from stimulus that is dangerous to it. so that little girl i have chained up in my basement doesn't hide from me because she's "afraid"
whoa, a total bullshit response that doesn't deal with anything i said?? what a surprise!!
goopstein posted:xipe posted:
enlightened, rational societies are so much better than those backwards religious ones
yeah factory farming is bad but its only comparative saving grace is that its execution style is lightyears ahead of what was, to be fair, a relatively ethical way of slaughtering innocent creatures for no good reason back in the year 3
how Progressive!
if u were to be reincarnated in the next life as a intelligent animal such as a pig, would u prefer to be born into animal auschwitz or have a traditional farm animal's life at the hands of Mad Muslims?
Cycloneboy posted:
truly, what is consciousness? apparently a thing i have to define, for a moron.
it certainly is considering that it is the bedrock of your argument and unlike most sophists you recognize that it extends past homo sapiens. precisely why is a baboon conscious and a border collie a blind automaton?
i can easily program a computer to have all of those things that you listed. *throws computer into fire, is a "murderer"*
you could indeed, but that would be the result of a process and structure entirely dissimilar to how humans and the other animals you mentioned developed those characteristics, whereas other animals you didn't mention developed those characteristics in exactly the same way as apes, monkeys and cetaceans while have the same physiological structure.
the universe doesn't give a fuck if an animals reason for running away is f(x)>y or "ow ow fuck that hurts," because the universe cares about things, we are able to determine what the universe cares about, it certainly cares what a human's reason for running away is, and as such our morality is based on what the universe cares about not what human beings have decided is right or wrong.this is meaningless bullshit where you purposefully misinterpret my point?? possibly because you're full of shit?? (ps, humans are animals)
your point was that the universe doesn't care about why an animal runs away. indeed, it does not. the universe doesn't care about anything. you might as well defend rape from the perspective that my car doesn't care if you commit rape. humans care, however, and the reasons they care about human suffering are only a bit of idiocy, stubbornness and sophistry away from caring about animal suffering. there's no actual principle as to why one should care about one and not the other.
lemme sum up the whole "what does the universe give a fuck about" in a sentence that you might be able to understand, in your limited intelligence: a p-zombie is exactly as evolutionarily effective as a human, but deserves none of the moral consideration.
i'm not really sure why that has anything to do with what the universe "gives a fuck about." presumably the universe would care about a philosophical zombie exactly as much as it cares about a real person. humans, on the other hand, might feel differently. i'm also not sure why you would invoke a pretend creature that does not exist to disprove my argument even if i was talking about human morality rather than Morality Deriving From the Edicts of the Universe
goopstein posted:
it certainly is considering that it is the bedrock of your argument and unlike most sophists you recognize that it extends past homo sapiens. precisely why is a baboon conscious and a border collie a blind automaton?
a baboon is not conscious. it can't pass the mirror test.
while it is difficult to know whether something is conscious or not - indeed, it is impossible for me to Know whether any other person on the entire planet is conscious, and it is equally impossible for me to Know whether every single bacteria on the entire planet is conscious - we can make fair guesses.
goopstein posted:
you could indeed, but that would be the result of a process and structure entirely dissimilar to how humans and the other animals you mentioned developed those characteristics, whereas other animals you didn't mention developed those characteristics in exactly the same way as apes, monkeys and cetaceans while have the same physiological structure.
so you are saying that a computer could never be worthy of moral consideration, since it didn't come about by the same processes which brought about humans?
goopstein posted:
your point was that the universe doesn't care about why an animal runs away. indeed, it does not. the universe doesn't care about anything. you might as well defend rape from the perspective that my car doesn't care if you commit rape. humans care, however, and the reasons they care about human suffering are only a bit of idiocy, stubbornness and sophistry away from caring about animal suffering. there's no actual principle as to why one should care about one and not the other.
yielded, on the point of that not actually being my point.
goopstein posted:
i'm not really sure why that has anything to do with what the universe "gives a fuck about." presumably the universe would care about a philosophical zombie exactly as much as it cares about a real person. humans, on the other hand, might feel differently. i'm also not sure why you would invoke a pretend creature that does not exist to disprove my argument even if i was talking about human morality rather than Morality Deriving From the Edicts of the Universe
dogs are basically p-zombies. that's what i'm saying.
Cycloneboy posted:
dogs are basically p-zombies.
not my dog you fucker. he ate bones and barked at shit and he ruled.
Cycloneboy posted:goopstein posted:
it certainly is considering that it is the bedrock of your argument and unlike most sophists you recognize that it extends past homo sapiens. precisely why is a baboon conscious and a border collie a blind automaton?a baboon is not conscious. it can't pass the mirror test.
is that your definition of consciousness, then? a pigeon can pass the mirror test, and a blind person cannot. is the blind person therefore non-conscious? that isn't a flippant response - some intelligent animals like dogs and pigs do not rely on sight as their primary sense.
while it is difficult to know whether something is conscious or not - indeed, it is impossible for me to Know whether any other person on the entire planet is conscious, and it is equally impossible for me to Know whether every single bacteria on the entire planet is conscious - we can make fair guesses.
indeed we can. it's a fair guess to assume that at least all large mammals are basically conscious to some degree.
so you are saying that a computer could never be worthy of moral consideration, since it didn't come about by the same processes which brought about humans?
no, i am saying that the method by which you made a computer do a thing was the result of a deliberate and artificial process entirely dissimilar to the process that created the same behavior in humans, chimps and dogs. because the process for those creatures was similar, and because they possess similar physiology, it's likely that the outcome is roughly similar as well, unlike what you would see from a computer.
goopstein posted:
dogs are basically p-zombies. that's what i'm saying.
i don't think you really believe that. i think that if i had two tables, on one was your happy family pet, on the other was the family car's engine block, and i slowly used tools to irreversibly dismantle them both i'm willing to bet that you'd be a bit more disturbed by the process on the pet. this is a shaky hypothesis considering that you have a piping hot kettle o'autism
goopstein posted:
is that your definition of consciousness, then? a pigeon can pass the mirror test, and a blind person cannot. is the blind person therefore non-conscious? that isn't a flippant response - some intelligent animals like dogs and pigs do not rely on sight as their primary sense.
the mirror test is the simple version. the slightly expanded version looks at high-correlation factors w/ the mirror test, like high intelligence and spindle neurons. further, it's extended to earlier forms of the same life forms with functional CNS's, even if they can't currently pass it (e.g. month old humans cannot pass the mirror test), and similar extensions for the obvious case of the blind.
given the recurrent correlation between high intelligence and the ability to pass the mirror test (pigeons can't pass a proper mirror test), and the fact that dogs aren't that smart, i believe the evidence suggests they are not conscious.
goopstein posted:
i don't think you really believe that. i think that if i had two tables, on one was your happy family pet, on the other was the family car's engine block, and i slowly used tools to irreversibly dismantle them both i'm willing to bet that you'd be a bit more disturbed by the process on the pet. this is a shaky hypothesis considering that you have a piping hot kettle o'autism
that's simply a matter of constitution. i would also be more distressed if you were to dismantle a dead dog in front of me, even though a dead dog is definitely not conscious at all. similarly, i would be more distressed by someone in intense pain screaming and writhing for a minute than someone in equally intense pain sitting completely calmly for an hour.
getfiscal posted:
not my dog you fucker. he ate bones and barked at shit and he ruled.
FUCK your dog. literally. *unzips pants*
Impper posted:
cycloneboys arguments get funnier and funnier
happy to be of entertainment value.
Edited by Cycloneboy ()
Cycloneboy posted:
FUCK your dog. literally. *unzips pants*
cylone--this is trite as fuck but i highly recommend taking high powered tryptamines as soon as possible to cure you of your overly narrow conception of subjective experience. ideally, mix with mdma
thirdplace posted:
i remember having literally exactly the same opinion as cyclone when i was much younger, but for the life of me i can't remember why i chose to draw such stark and arbitrary lines. catastrophic collision with naive cartesianism? reaction formation to being competently challenged by vegetarianism? something silly for sure
cylone--this is trite as fuck but i highly recommend taking high powered tryptamines as soon as possible to cure you of your overly narrow conception of subjective experience. ideally, mix with mdma
its because cycloneman is a child who has child thoughts no different from other children
Cycloneboy posted:goopstein posted:
is that your definition of consciousness, then? a pigeon can pass the mirror test, and a blind person cannot. is the blind person therefore non-conscious? that isn't a flippant response - some intelligent animals like dogs and pigs do not rely on sight as their primary sense.the mirror test is the simple version. the slightly expanded version looks at high-correlation factors w/ the mirror test, like high intelligence and spindle neurons. further, it's extended to earlier forms of the same life forms with functional CNS's, even if they can't currently pass it (e.g. month old humans cannot pass the mirror test), and similar extensions for the obvious case of the blind.
given the recurrent correlation between high intelligence and the ability to pass the mirror test (pigeons can't pass a proper mirror test), and the fact that dogs aren't that smart, i believe the evidence suggests they are not conscious.
actually, pigeons can, but you mentioned crows affirmatively. f you look at the nervous system and neural structure of a crow, you will find it to be much more different to a human than a dog's is. a dog and a human are mostly identical in the primitive areas of the brain controlling things including pain reception, whereas the bird, with a far less recent common ancestor, is a bit different.
Cycloneboy posted:goopstein posted:
i don't think you really believe that. i think that if i had two tables, on one was your happy family pet, on the other was the family car's engine block, and i slowly used tools to irreversibly dismantle them both i'm willing to bet that you'd be a bit more disturbed by the process on the pet. this is a shaky hypothesis considering that you have a piping hot kettle o'autismthat's simply a matter of constitution.
it's a matter of empathy not constitution you crazy teen
tpaine posted:some of the best "guy talking about stuff" minutes ever
wow he totally ripped off scrubber's partial-birth fetal rape bit
goopstein posted:
actually, pigeons can, but you mentioned crows affirmatively.
pigeons can only pass a variant on a mirror test. they have to be trained to be able to use mirrors.
goopstein posted:
f you look at the nervous system and neural structure of a crow, you will find it to be much more different to a human than a dog's is. a dog and a human are mostly identical in the primitive areas of the brain controlling things including pain reception, whereas the bird, with a far less recent common ancestor, is a bit different.
wherever consciousness is stored in the brain, i'm pretty sure it's *not* in the pain receptors.
goopstein posted:
it's a matter of empathy not constitution you crazy teen
i prefer the term constitution, since empathy seems so much loftier and worthy of praise. what it's actually referring to, however, is a collection of unbelievably stupid automatic built-in responses to stimulus that have little-to-nothing to do with any reasonable morality. see a dog whimpering and limping? brains kicks in the empathy switch, orders you to rush over and make sure it's okay. hear that with only $100 dollars you can save dozens of lives in some foreign village? brain turns on sleep mode.
thirdplace posted:
cylone--this is trite as fuck but i highly recommend taking high powered tryptamines as soon as possible to cure you of your overly narrow conception of subjective experience. ideally, mix with mdma
i don't see how a hallucinogenic experience would change my views on cow brains, so no.
pusher.