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.
