Utah can't into filters on porn searches

[POFP]

The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.

But by that logic it should also be prohibited for an animal to have sex with another animal.

So, to you, humans are just animals, and nothing else.

That's pretty bleak.

I'm a cosmicist

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

[POFP]

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

[POFP]

I don't know. Maybe I'm blowing up the context, or assuming one that wasn't there.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

But is that something intrinsic to humans? Do you think that other animals could have evolved to fill this niche, or that others might in the future?

Do you think it's ever appropriate to hold another animal responsible for its actions, or to try to teach them to modify their behavior?

Being an animal doesn't negate free will.

[POFP]

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

But is that something intrinsic to humans? Do you think that other animals could have evolved to fill this niche, or that others might in the future?

Do you think it's ever appropriate to hold another animal responsible for its actions, or to try to teach them to modify their behavior?

Being an animal doesn't negate free will.

I imagine that other beings may come along that will think that our form of consciousness is limited, and that it may be silly to hold us responsible for our silly monkey ways. In which case, if they are that far ahead of us in consciousness, they probably wouldn't have the mind to even bother with us.

After some thought, I believe the environment of the system in question is highly relevant to this discussion. For example, in the jungle, where a lion or tiger is most fit, the decisions we'd make would probably appear to be maximum stoopid. I mean, the predators most fit in their environment tend to toy with their prey when they're bored. This is comparable to us when we have rodeos or dog fights.

I would make an argument that it is best to hold an animal responsible for its actions that are taken in their matched environment. But it is only viable to change the behavior of an animal by taking them out of their matched environment, as that is when they are vulnerable, but also more susceptible to persuasion. When you want to change your behavior, it's usually best to take yourself out of your comfort zone, especially when it involves unlearning.

Free Will seems, in the context of this discussion, to be relative. We are animals. But our level of decision-making is quite complex. Although our environments change, I believe some decisions should be held against us regardless of the environment.

Every decision has a range of context. I believe that in the safety of our towns, the decision to kill someone you see as a general moderate danger to your family as something that should be held against you (This depends on where you live.). Whereas, the decision to do so if you are in a small group of people out in the woods, alone, on a trip, to be something that you shouldn't have held against you. There is no community power in the lonely environment of the woods to protect people, and so they are expected to protect themselves. This desperation is understandable. But it is not acceptable in the protection of a community, unless this person is putting you in immediate danger.

The complexity of being able to live in multiple environments and make various decisions based on both want and need, makes it hard to isolate the difference between free will and forced behavior. Whereas, the simplicity of animal instinct and thought in other animals, and the limitations of their abilities to adapt to changing environments makes most of their behavior forced, and hardly capable of being considered free will.

And I would argue that in the cosmic context of decisions, we are mostly performing forced behavior that is miniscule. The thing is, we have the ability to perform free will on a cosmic scale. We just haven't looked outward into the skies in a long time. Our decisions are limited by our context of thought, while other animals have their thought limited fundamentally, on a neurophysiological level. Would you at least agree with that?

[CBXTN]

Do you think it's ever appropriate to hold another animal responsible for its actions, or to try to teach them to modify their behavior?

Being an animal doesn't negate free will.

Speaking of animals, free will, and consent - it seems to be common to talk about the responsibilities of the oppressor. As if the oppressor should be more mindful of the thing it oppresses...

but what are the responsibility of things that are being dominated? And, what forms of consent do our biological bodies give that our consciousness do not? Sure, the zebra does not want to be killed by the lion, but the cells of the zebra evolved in symbiosis the cells of the lion. Essentially, the zebra's cellular memory has given Consent to Feed. Likewise, the human has evolved to manipulate organisms around it - so the cells of that which we influence have already primordially consented, even though the consciousnesses may not have consented.

To go bring it back to the discussion of pornography; the human has evolved to fap at anything which may arouse them, and the government has evolved to limit the kinds of socially acceptable arousals. It is a symbiosis, and we are trapped within the sociological-sexual evolution.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You know, right now I hate both of you because your conversation is both navel-gazing and puerile. Obviously one of you is stupider than the other, so I'll try to dignify Fernando Poo with an answer tomorrow when I'm less filled with contempt.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with a couple of things to think about.

What is "fundamentally different"?

Are children fundamentally different from adults?

Are horses fundamentally different from badgers?

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

They're all self-assembling blobs of hydrocarbons

[Pergamos]

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.

[Junkenstein]

I hate both of you because your conversation is both navel-gazing and puerile

Newsfeed.

[POFP]

You know, right now I hate both of you because your conversation is both navel-gazing and puerile. Obviously one of you is stupider than the other, so I'll try to dignify Fernando Poo with an answer tomorrow when I'm less filled with contempt.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with a couple of things to think about.

What is "fundamentally different"?

Are children fundamentally different from adults?

Are horses fundamentally different from badgers?

Please keep in mind that my initial posts that contain most of the content are intended to be whittled down to viable ideas. I intentionally leave out certain amounts of processing so as not to remove something useful that I overlooked. Most of what I say in these posts are my almost immediate raw thoughts, and often end up very first-drafty, and sometimes don't have morality included. There's no need for contempt or hate when it comes to these discussions. If I say something stupid, mock it, and have fun. That's what most of the regulars come here for in terms of a discussion, right?

You can compare my discussion method to throwing shit at the wall as hard as you can until some corn falls out. Laugh at the shit, keep the corn. I mean, I thought this was the basics.

Either way, I appreciate the dignification.



I would argue that "fundamentally different," in this context, would imply that the complexity, creativity, and potential for stream of thought is so entirely disparate, that it would be silly to look at the two things as comparable platforms. It is silly to hold an army of ants responsible for covering your floor if you're constantly dropping food in a poorly insulated and sealed house or building. Anyone would probably kill them all, because that is the most convenient option, and they largely don't have an effect on us. But getting upset at them is silly, as we all know that this is how you get ants. Our fault, not theirs.

If we consider that the fundamentals of how an organism thinks, feels, and changes are rooted in the sizes or existence of certain brain structures, you can somewhat accurately isolate what organisms tend to be capable of specific decisions, changes, and feelings. If my memory serves to be correct, you have a degree (advanced?) in psychology. If not, you're probably more studied up on it anyways. It'd probably be insulting to attempt to explain where I'm going with this with such a limited background. I think you can extrapolate this part. Also worth noting, I'm sure they discovered somewhat recently that the ratio of brain mass to body mass is a huge determining factor when it comes to intelligence and problem solving skills. This makes animals like birds VERY good at problem solving, but they are very simple organisms in general, and would not have a very complex thought. To consider their actions to be prefaced by "decisions" would be a bit of an exaggeration, imo.



I would consider a NEW environment to be one that is not exactly "matched" or deeply compatible. Therefore, I see decisions that children make to be more impulsive and exploratory, as they should be. Children are by no means fundamentally different from adults, as I've witnessed children of all ages capable of very complex thoughts and decisions. However, the unusually spongy/absorbent nature of a child's mind is something that should be taken into account. I'm not saying they shouldn't be scolded for hurtful decisions. I'm saying the scolding in that case should be equally distributed to the parents, or those responsible for the child's environment.


I haven't done much research into the neurological difference between a horse and a badger, but I assume your point here is: "Should we see humans as the only ones that are different, fundamentally? Or are other animals different from each other in their own ways?"

If this is the case, I would argue that animals vary in complexity and potential, so I would argue there are many milestones and levels among the other animals. Hell, one could argue there are even differences between humans, if you're accounting for deviant mental deficiencies - The ones that are detrimental neurological factors.

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.

Well, we don't like the people that hold them accountable and execute them for it. Those people tend to be the same people who made them fight. I hope you weren't trying to imply that I would support that?

Mostly just unsure of where this was going. Sorry if I seem unusually defensive.

Do you think it's ever appropriate to hold another animal responsible for its actions, or to try to teach them to modify their behavior?

Being an animal doesn't negate free will.

Speaking of animals, free will, and consent - it seems to be common to talk about the responsibilities of the oppressor. As if the oppressor should be more mindful of the thing it oppresses...

but what are the responsibility of things that are being dominated? And, what forms of consent do our biological bodies give that our consciousness do not? Sure, the zebra does not want to be killed by the lion, but the cells of the zebra evolved in symbiosis the cells of the lion. Essentially, the zebra's cellular memory has given Consent to Feed. Likewise, the human has evolved to manipulate organisms around it - so the cells of that which we influence have already primordially consented, even though the consciousnesses may not have consented.

To go bring it back to the discussion of pornography; the human has evolved to fap at anything which may arouse them, and the government has evolved to limit the kinds of socially acceptable arousals. It is a symbiosis, and we are trapped within the sociological-sexual evolution.

What the actual fuck? 

The government didn't have to evolve to limit acceptable arousals. Most people understand that being accepting of sexual arousal from kids, or non-consenting animals, leads to the abuse thereof.

You, apparently, have no regard for that fact, which makes you a disgusting freak. 

[CBXTN]

Speaking of animals, free will, and consent - it seems to be common to talk about the responsibilities of the oppressor. As if the oppressor should be more mindful of the thing it oppresses...

but what are the responsibility of things that are being dominated? And, what forms of consent do our biological bodies give that our consciousness do not? Sure, the zebra does not want to be killed by the lion, but the cells of the zebra evolved in symbiosis the cells of the lion. Essentially, the zebra's cellular memory has given Consent to Feed. Likewise, the human has evolved to manipulate organisms around it - so the cells of that which we influence have already primordially consented, even though the consciousnesses may not have consented.

To go bring it back to the discussion of pornography; the human has evolved to fap at anything which may arouse them, and the government has evolved to limit the kinds of socially acceptable arousals. It is a symbiosis, and we are trapped within the sociological-sexual evolution.

What the actual fuck? 

The government didn't have to evolve to limit acceptable arousals. Most people understand that being accepting of sexual arousal from kids, or non-consenting animals, leads to the abuse thereof.

You, apparently, have no regard for that fact, which makes you a disgusting freak. 

I think Prelate Diogenes Shandor said it quite succinctly:

They're all self-assembling blobs of hydrocarbons

The universe has allowed for the possibility of organisms to influence and manipulate other organisms, whether by digesting them, inseminating them, etc. - from molecular to macro. I'm afraid if I apply a hierarchy of morality upon a nihilistic biology, I'm gonna slip on a banana peel.

I believe governments have evolved to limit arousals. Especially the U.S. government, which has a Christian foundation. Remember that Puritans established many of the original colonies, and they were obsessed with sexual repression whose legacy continues to this day.

Dare I say, governments are systems which impose a set of values as "impartial". Those values are constructed by the larger culture and a few wealthy inidividuals. Utah is a huge Latter-Day Saint state, no wonder they passed such a law.   

[POFP]

I didn't say that they don't limit arousals. I said they didn't have to evolve to do so. It's not very surprising that a system made up of people who are disgusted by sexual abuse would be biased against sexual abuse.

The universe has allowed for the possibility of organisms to influence and manipulate other organisms, whether by digesting them, inseminating them, etc. - from molecular to macro. I'm afraid if I apply a hierarchy of morality upon a nihilistic biology, I'm gonna slip on a banana peel.
 

No, Nihilists are the ones that think it's pointless to go out of their way to not step on the banana peel, and so they fall on their asses over and over again.

Biology is not Nihilistic. It is doing all the work, and making your existence possible. It gave you the ability to create meaning, and you chose to waste that on an ideology that is based on moral laziness. You're spineless inability to stand up for a set of moral principles is caused by cowardice. Ordinarily, I would attribute this to tween arrogance. But, you said you were already out of college in your Introduction, which means you're probably old enough to know better. As someone who went through your problem as a phase, I assure you that it is due to an ego the size of Texas, and a habit of compartmentalization at the first sign of a threat to your belief, and magical thinking. You assume that because your ideology explains and accounts for all, that it is infallible. You are wrong. You are not special. You are not a philosopher (No reason why you'd want to be one). We have seen plenty like you, and we are not impressed.

The world doesn't care about you, and it has nothing to do with Nihilism. It has to do with the fact that you can't accept that sexual abuse and manipulation are fucking wrong.

So go slip on a fucking banana peel.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Fernando, I'm going to be blunt with you. I think that intellectually speaking, you have potential, but, much like The Wizard Joseph, you are still in the exploratory stage where your thinking is cluttered with a lot of experimental ideas and stuff you're ultimately going to learn more about and realize was naive, or think through and discard. I find all the clutter intensely annoying, and I don't feel like being the person to help you pare it back to just the meaningful discourse, so I probably won't engage with you much until you get there.