Ethnicities are a waste of time. What about better eyes, or entirely new senses, or radiation hardness, or the organic half for a computer interface, or many other possibilities or all the above?
Or at least start with repairing that stupid broken ascorbate pathway, the hereditary metabolic illness that’s considered “normal” just because everybody has it?
FTFY.
Kind of like chickens.
But enough of Yakub.
Eh, hypocrisy. It’s delicious when found in others and embarrassing in oneself, but it’s like ad hominem insofar as it undermines sound reasoning or thoughtful principles (that is to say, not much all).
There is such a thing as leading by example, of course, and hypocrisy does corrupt that, but one ought be able to separate art from artist, ethic from ethicist (unless one is tiresomely simple-minded).
Apparently I’m still the only person on earth that’s read “Animal Liberation,” because despite all the huffing and puffing on this thread, nobody else claims to have read it. Not that I want to boot that around, I’m just saying.
[quote=“shaddack, post:84, topic:61819”]
Ethnicities are a waste of time. [/quote]
Perhaps you are working from a banal, accidental definition of ethnicity.
But what is “better” all depends upon whom you ask. More customization to humanity means more differentiation. Groups of people who have developed different physiological and cognitive abilities will be more different, and less superficially so, than ethnicities as most know of them now.
Tranquilito, nobody is interested in this particular attempt to bait.
Aren’t they all?
In case of eyes, make it higher wavelength span, higher spatial and temporal resolution. In case of radiation hardness, anything that will withstand with ease some prolonged exposure to cosmic radiation without much of shielding - because that’s where the way to stars goes through. Computer interfaces, what else to say.
Yes. And why not? Even the physical form can be entirely different, customized for different environments. Perhaps even regrowable to a different form as needed.
Yes. Hence ethnicity-level tinkering is at the banal, uninteresting level. We have to think beyond that narrow range.
It’s only narrow because you are defining that way. My point was that if you are happy to consider serious human variance, what name we call the differences is merely linguistic baggage.
Amid ongoing revelations that the American Psychological Association (APA) aided the U.S. government’s secret torture program, several APA officials on Tuesday announced their resignation from the organization, including its chief executive officer [and Ethics Director].
Well, you’ve been saying it a lot!
So you wonder why it isn’t a bible for people who support the rights of non-human animals, because then you could more easily dismiss them as psychotic, self-aggrandizing attention-seekers? It’s a very open question, to ask people why they haven’t read a certain book.
I am enthusiastic about the actual liberation of animals, because treating them like property is slavery. And tailoring environments to be used exclusively by humans has been an ecological disaster. That said, I don’t know anything about Singer or his book, just because I had never been exposed to them. If I had to go out on a limb and guess what the fuss was about, I’d say that so much of human history has been dependent upon exploiting other species, that actually re-organizing society to treat them fairly is a revolutionary concept. Anything which challenges and aims to change so many assumptions and practices likely outrages a good many people. YMMV
OK, so there’s no books on the subject you’d read including books you’d agree with? What is the basis of your subculture - campfire stories?
I’m not sure why people are out freaked out by my opinions anyway, since they seem to be a constant source of amusement and frat boy chest bumps.
I was a vegetarian for yeeears. And after all the arguing and reasoning… The only thing that stands up to scrutiny is The Biggest Bad Wins. Entropy and chemistry ( applied physics (applied math :D)) win. Plants eat decayed matter, animals eat plants, we eat animals, Sol will eat earth, and the milky way will eat Sol.
But the ethical part for me is, “try not to be mean about it”. That is why I eat a small portion of cow, but not CAFO cow. Or I don’t eat my cat, dog, or wife, cause they trust me (though when the cat looks hungry, he looks… Hungry).
Emancipation of animals is just bizarre. I could (and may) go on a screed, but humans are an apex predator. We will hunt, maim, kill anything, including the planet because of this. So I see two ways out of this ethical dilemma.
I am using a facetious tone, but I am serious. Either fundamentally change our biology or go whole hog. And frankly I don’t see an ethical dilemma with either.
Correct!
I’ve been striving for more of a metaculture. I cook on fires in the day, but not at night, as they draw snipers.
A sensible precaution.
My beef is with the anti-vaxxers who are trying to recast themselves as concerned GMO critics while still posting spam links to anti-vaxxer sites. I have not seen that here, but it is very common on unmoderated sites. They link to the anti-GMO sites (naturalnews etc) which seem at least 90% also anti-vaxxer. Of course these are supposedly questions of “ethics” and “integrity.”
Sure easy to figure out what with all this gibbering on about antisemitic vegetarians.
I said that right up at the top before you started free associating and got lost in the weeds.
And, again, I’m not the one that has tried over and over to turn this into thread about diet.
If you want to be taken seriously–which I believe is nearly impossible now, but it’s your hour–stop abusing the fallacy fallacy.
I’ll give you a moment while you go look that up.
Equally surprising: botanists aren’t plants.
I don’t think you are clear on the concept of a fallacy. An ad hominem can be independent of an argument - for instance I can say that Paris Hilton is a stupid skank, period. That’s an ad hominem, but there is no argument I’m trying to prove… Nobody here was making a point, they were simply throwing ad hominems. It does not follow that if you throw an ad hominem then a priori there must have been an argument and therefore you can claim a fallacy fallacy of I-suck-but-I’m-still-right.
Here’s the confusion, you believe that an ad-hom represents is a simple insult. It is in fact an entirely separate concept. You are continuing to use it out of the context that everyone else knows and understands.
I suggest you look it up so these misunderstandings don’t keep happening elsewhere as well.
