faetal on 18/12/2013 at 03:11
Yeah, we understand a lot about language, but to my knowledge, there isn't much going on in the way of parsing inter-species languages.
Nicker on 18/12/2013 at 05:24
Quote Posted by NuEffect
Nonsense. Individual humans can chronicle their own lives or the results of experiments on paper. No animal can do this.
Not nonsense, since I already pointed that out. We can preserve our culture in persistent mediums.
Quote Posted by NuEffect
Yes, our knowledge its passed on through our culture but that needs individuals with the ability to record and retrieve all that data.
That goes without saying. Same holds true for animal culture, minus the persistent storage mediums. It is a difference of degrees not of type.
Quote Posted by NuEffect
I agree with protecting animals but I don't see why you need to bother with defining them as persons. In fact I think it's a silly side track, a waste of time and is actually detrimental to the cause. Quit talking semantic and legal bs about persons and get on with creating sensible codes of practice for treating animals with compassion.
Perhaps exploring that "semantic and legal bs" is an important part of raising that awareness. Seems to be working here.
Nicker on 18/12/2013 at 05:36
Quote Posted by demagogue
But does having a greater responsibility immediately equate to greater rights? In the human rights literature, rights are reserved particularly for the exactly most vulnerable human populations, because they're the ones that need the protection most. Persons with knowledge and power, and greater responsibilities, already have some means to protect themselves.
True that. Rights are usually presented as essential, inviolable and "self evident" but they usually manifest as legal luxuries in times of peace and prosperity or when an oppressor shows signs of weakness. John Kenneth Galbraith called revolutions "the kicking in of rotten doors". Rights tend to evaporate in times of strife, which is why despots great and small, like to maintain at least the appearance of a threat to the state, if not to perpetuate an actual one.
The existence of clearly defined rights are no guarantee they will be respected. They are apparently not essential, since feudal and autocratic societies are very stable and historically popular arrangements. They are not inviolable (see above). Judging by this thread alone, they are not self evident.
(BTW - if you want a great, wry, non-mathematical primer on history and economics, Galbraith's series
The Age Of Uncertainty is a must.)
[video=youtube;KGSID_Uyw7w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGSID_Uyw7w[/video]
Here is a teaser, but not a spoiler...
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7WCOepX2bo&t=2334s&end=2654)
SubJeff on 18/12/2013 at 12:37
Quote Posted by Nicker
Not nonsense, since I already pointed that out. We can preserve our culture in persistent mediums.
What?
You said this:
Quote Posted by Nicker
Individual humans aren't that much more adept at physically storing information than bright animals.
and I'm saying it's nonsense because animals don't physically store ideas, at all.
Nicker on 18/12/2013 at 14:47
Quote Posted by NuEffect
What? You said this: and I'm saying it's nonsense because animals don't physically store ideas, at all.
I was attempting drollery. I didn't mean that your point was nonsense I meant that your argument had already been figured into my previous statement. But not very well.
Yes individual humans can make records but they can only do that in the context of a greater culture. I was referring to the observation that some animals excel at cognitive tasks like recall. But if we get to pick the tests, we will inevitably rank highest overall.
But again, the question posed in this thread is about legal personhood and while defining sentience may be an essential aspect of that consideration it is not the only one.
Just ask Pieter Joek.
[video=youtube;3eX0rmoKFwg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eX0rmoKFwg[/video]
