Not trying to be a troll, but PETA scares me...

[Tokki Wartooth]

Define "soul," because animals have nervous systems, feelings, sensations, methods of communication, and every single other aspect that we retain making us "alive" and "human," just to a lesser extent in most cases.

Do you know what evolution is? It's a nice little theory saying we come from primates. Does this mean we were machines until we evolved into homo sapiens? But wait...what about homo erectus? Was he a machine too? And homo habilis? Do you know we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees? I suppose that means they're 98% non-machine?

I find it hard to love humanity after hearing people that truly believe things like "animals are the equivilant to machines."

[Jojee]

Your last sentence sounds speechworthy, udsuna xD

Anyway, while I agree with some of your arguments (haha I actually did read this whole thread ), what you said last was just... incorrect

Animals have souls.

A machine is a device that is only programmed to do certain things. Computers are machines; animals are not. Animals are much more intricate than machines. Can a machine love? Can a machine learn, feel pain, feel anger, feel sadness, undergo emotional scarring, know loyalty? Can a machine feel hunger, act unpredictable, feel tired, grow old? I've had a puppy and a kitten, and I'll have to conclude that they were not machines

[udsuna]

Your last sentence sounds speechworthy, udsuna xD

Actually, it's a line from a play. Slightly modified. Let's see the "98% same DNA as human" chimpanzee quote Shakespear. Much less shape the words to have new meanings while not sacrificing the original design.

I've said before, IN THIS THREAD, we are clothed in the flesh of animals. I suppose a body made the same way as all other animals comes with DNA the same as all other animals. Doesn't even phase my statement. Our physical forms are as much machines as any animal's. Granted, life is the most incredibly and wonderfully complex machinery in existance, but in and of itself, it's just a biochemical chain reaction, no more capable of free will than the planets of our solar system. And if I didn't need it anymore, I wouldn't be sorry to see my flesh used for whatever purpose seems most useful.

Our bodies, just like animals, are no more or less valuable than what they're used for. It's our minds and our souls that make HUMAN bodies more valuable- and if my mind and soul suddenly found itself inside another form of life, then THAT lifeform would by default become as valuable as my original. Whereas said original would be returned to it's default value as a slab of meat, good for nothing but whatever someone uses it for.

Download me into a computer, and eat my flesh, for all I care. I'm registered to be harvested for organs when I die, because they might still have value after I die. Y'know, if I don't get incinerated or something. I want my body thrown out into the woods and eaten by scavangers. Flesh is NOTHING but what we make of it, and humanity is the only thing capable of making it anything worthwhile.

[DocFrance]

Can a machine feel hunger, act unpredictable, feel tired, grow old?

If it's programmed to do so, then yes, it can.

[Tokki Wartooth]

The difference is, DocFrance, that animals aren't programmed.

And udsuna, how about not disregarding all the arguments you can't counter? At what point on the evolutionary chain did homo sapiens lose their "machine" status?

[DocFrance]

The difference is, DocFrance, that animals aren't programmed.

Yes, they are. If you rub a cat's belly, it will hiss and scratch at you. If you present some food to a dog, it will salivate. If you kick a man in the groin, he will bend over in pain. Physiologically, a brain is nothing more than an advanced biological computer that initiates reactions (output) based on external stimuli (input).

And udsuna, how about not disregarding all the arguments you can't counter? At what point on the evolutionary chain did homo sapiens lose their "machine" status?

Probably about the time when ceremonial burials started occuring. That's when our ancestors began to wonder what happened when we died. We began to imagine myths about the stars in the sky, or what not. Our imagination is what seperates us from the animals.

[udsuna]

The difference is, DocFrance, that animals aren't programmed.

And udsuna, how about not disregarding all the arguments you can't counter? At what point on the evolutionary chain did homo sapiens lose their "machine" status?

Yes, animals ARE programmed. Whether programmed by evolution or by divine plan, everything that an animal IS, you can find in that lovely little string of DNA that you brought up before- if it's good enough for you to use on me, it's good enough to be GOSPEL for you. Heck, it's so advanced a design, it even comes with self-improving protocols. Kinda like the EXACT OPPOSITE of anything created by Microsoft. Human bodies, like animals, pretty much the same designs- but we can defy our programs and do something else entirely- and THAT is the free will that makes us superior.

And will you tell me what I'm disregarding? I'd love to hear anything that I disregard... I point out the flaws and move on to the next. Find a flawless point, and I'll just scratch my head, reconsider my point using this new information, and change my ideas to suit this new fact.

Also, I think the point where we became more than machines was probably somewhere around the area where we learned how to not only create, but actually DESIGN, machines of our own. Or when we invented artwork. Or developed teaching methods. I don't know exactly, I wasn't around to watch humanity become more than just animals. At some point, it happened, and there's a *REALLY* big gap between us and second-place.

EDIT: ceremonial burials are also entirely a plausible point. Chronologically, these all happened in close proximity to one another, if you call a 2000 year margin for error close. Whichever way it works, to use the machine analogy, it's the point where we started writing our own programing.

Define "soul," because animals have nervous systems, feelings, sensations, methods of communication, ...

Um... that isn't the soul. That's a mixture of biochems and neuropaths. The SOUL is the part of us that can DEFY the organic compulsions. The part that makes romance more than just a mating drive. The part that choses WHAT is more important than our body and it's whims. Or, at least, tries (can't say we always rise above animal nature, but we at least try).
Take, for example, China a few decades ago. Full swing of the invasion of Tibet. Some monks went to the streets, doused in kerosene, and SET THEMSELVES ON FIRE in protest. Then they calmly sat or walked around as the BURNED TO DEATH. No animal can defy instinct (and sanity?) like that.
We who create marriage despite being so obviously a polyamorous genetic background. We who create planes and submarines, despite instincts that tell us we should be afraid of great height and closed spaces. We who are willing die for something as rarefied as nationalism. The power to utterly disregard and directly violate our biological and logical systems- THAT is the power that comes only from a soul.

[Tokki Wartooth]

Yes, they are. If you rub a cat's belly, it will hiss and scratch at you. If you present some food to a dog, it will salivate. If you kick a man in the groin, he will bend over in pain. Physiologically, a brain is nothing more than an advanced biological computer that initiates reactions (output) based on external stimuli (input).

Okay, then the difference is we program machines, but animals are thinking beings that "program" themelves, just as humans do. I don't see how you can keep pushing this animal = machine thing.

[udsuna]

Okay, then the difference is we program machines, but animals are thinking beings that "program" themelves, just as humans do. I don't see how you can keep pushing this animal = machine thing.

Um, animals don't program themselves. They are programmed by a combination of genetic code and environmental conditioning. They are incredibly advanced machines, moreso than anything humans might ever be able to construct, but they are STILL just machines.
I, and presumably you, can program or reprogram ourselves. Give me a good reason why I should do or not do something, and I shall alter my program to fit as such. Recently, I made a choice to never eat pig meat again, because I did as a website suggested and poured coke on raw port.... it was horrible. And disgust gave me the reason to reprogram, so I have.

And while we're at it, since when does a machine NEED a program? Computers need programs, my car has no program. All a machine needs is to be put together by an assembly process (womb) according to a blueprint (DNA). In order to perform a task (live and mate and repeat entire process).

[Emerald Aeris]

"And I always thought it was wrong to have sex with children because it causes long term emotional damage that never quite heals... animals can't experience long-term emotional damage, and therefor, that doesn't apply. Either that, or it's because both are just nasty."

I would say because they're unable to rationally make the choice. And yes, the ick factor.

Also, as Leeza said, you couldn't possibly be more wrong about saying that animals can't experience emotional damage that doesn't heal.

"And, now, I'd love to hear exactly how animals are parallel to children ENOUGH to use them for analogy."

I'm comparing one aspect and one aspect about them alone. No, it's not a perfect analogy.

"I and everyone else out there is under moral obligation to point out that, if forced to choose between their infant and their pet dog, the dog WILL lose... and anyone who'd choose otherwise is evil, as simple as that."

How is that relevant to what I'm saying? O_o

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the synopsis right there."

Pretty close. Ultimately we care that they feel pain, and you don't, so I dunno if there's much left to say.

"I ignored it as a disgusting, below-the-belt shot that didn't deserve a responce."

Uh, why?

"Human children, regardless of intelligence, still have souls."

Oh, we're bringing religion back into the discussion. Goody.

"They're incapable of being more than their function in nature, or what we use them for."

I don't see how you could've known that many animals and honestly believed that.

"I side against you, not because my love of animals is less, but because my love of humanity is more."

I could never love an animal as much as I love, say, my family, or lover, but that's only because I can't form as much of a connection because of the lack of language... It doesn't mean I can't have extremely strong bonds with animals. I don't love humans simply because they're humans.

"no more capable of free will than the planets of our solar system."

Again, I don't see how you could be around animals and believe that.

"everything that an animal IS, you can find in that lovely little string of DNA that you brought up before"

There's as much reason to believe that about animals as there is about humans. Very little.

Also, you didn't address when I said that birds and such probably think their mates are beautiful, for one.

[udsuna]

"no more capable of free will than the planets of our solar system."

Again, I don't see how you could be around animals and believe that.

It's called imperical observation. Watch with eyes unfettered by emotional attachments, with the cold logic that humanity alone can master, and it's surprisingly easy. They are slaves to their impulses, the closest thing they have to "freedom" is deciding WHICH impulse to follow right then. They cannot plan, they cannot build, they cannot design. They exist, and follow their path as predestined, nothing more.
Just as I know what will occur when I press the buttons on my keyboard. More complex, more difficult for humans to grasp, and thus harder for us to predict, but obeying their impulses as surely as the planets obey the forces that command them. And even planetoids surprise us once and a while- because we're not far enough along in the study, nothing more.

[Tokki Wartooth]

It's called imperical observation.

Is that supposed to be "imperial" or "empirical?" Because I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

And nice at responding to one of the 20 or so statements she made.

It's really hard to debate intelligently with someone so small-minded. But okay, I give up. Animals exist only to be eaten by us because we're bigger and thus capable of taking advantage of them, and when we kill them for food we have to be sure to do it in the least humane way possible. Yep. Thanks for opening my eyes.

[udsuna]

Dude, could you be any MORE annoying? Really, please, try, I wanna see it. My bad for mispelling empirical.... we all make grammerical errors. If you're familiar with the scientific method, you'd easily know exactly what I was saying, because it's the only thing that makes sence.
And I never said we should be inhumane- and you should know that if you've read my posts. So, you're either stupid for not remembering that or a jackass for not reading up before making comments, or a loser for knowing the truth, yet ignoring it for your own purposes, you pick. If I were to guess, I'd go with "all of the above".

Wait, no, I'm sorry... looking back, I did ask you if you had any more "wild guesses that are so wrong it's actually pathetic." I shouldn't insult you for providing me with exactly what I requested. Still, they are pretty pathetic. Grow up and stop with the rude little personal attacks, then get back to me.
Although, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm wrong about humanity having free will. Basic intellectual argument- side losing ground- gets upset- behaves like a brat- uses insults in order to drag down to level- and (SPOILER)claims other side started the insults first just as soon as they fight back- watch, if he doesn't read this first, he will, I'd bet on it of course, he'll read this and it won't quite have the impact I'd like. Que sera, sera. But, seriously, can't you disagree without having to mock my stance? I've been more than respectful up to (but clearly not including) this point.

My stance, in a nutshell, AGAIN:

1. Humans are (clearly, I think) the highest form of life. We are easily best in every way that can be measured and is applicable to this discussion. And a considerable number that aren't.
2. This gives us privileges. Also a fairly self-evident statement.
3. This includes using inferior life to our benefit.
4. Abusing this privilege is not only wrong, it's dangerous. We should be responsible and intelligent about our choices, because resources are finite.
5. Killing for food is not an abuse of our privileges, in fact, it's the closest one to nature we have.
6. Excessive, unnecessary cruelty IS abuse
7. Incidental harm caused is NOT abuse
8. As much as I adore all life, the above values are more important to me than any cuteness or pity factors that may make me desire to think otherwise. Again, with the concepts of restraint and control keeping us from going all out and destroying everything. There is a safe middle ground.
9. When reasonable controls are held, it's actually to the benefit of both us AND the species of animals that we use. We protect them, they feed us. Symbiosis is a beautiful thing. True, it royally screws a lot of individual members, but the overall cost/benefits to the species are quite favorable.

There, did I miss anything? Nope, I think this it up pretty well. I even layered and numbered it, so you'd have an easier time grasping it.

[Emerald Aeris]

Guys, lets not insult each other, it'll just get the thread closed.

"It's called imperical observation. Watch with eyes unfettered by emotional attachments, with the cold logic that humanity alone can master, and it's surprisingly easy. They are slaves to their impulses, the closest thing they have to "freedom" is deciding WHICH impulse to follow right then. They cannot plan, they cannot build, they cannot design. They exist, and follow their path as predestined, nothing more."

Well, seeing as I've taken a couple animal behaviour courses, I have done studies with "cold logic that humanity alone can master", and yes, I still believe you're very wrong. Just because animals probably don't think like we do doesn't make them only machines, and saying that all they do is follow impulses, and that they can't plan or design is plain inaccurate. They use tools. They build homes. They learn. Many can differentiate between right and wrong (obviously very different from ours). They have complex social structures. I just can't say enough about how wrong that is.

"I've been more than respectful up to (but clearly not including) this point."

No, I really don't think you have, but moving right along.

"1. Humans are (clearly, I think) the highest form of life. We are easily best in every way that can be measured and is applicable to this discussion. And a considerable number that aren't."

We're smarter. That's the only way we're better.

"2. This gives us privileges. Also a fairly self-evident statement.
3. This includes using inferior life to our benefit."
I disagree with this. If I'm stronger and smarter than you, does that mean I have privilages over you? Is it then ok for me to use you as a slave? I think it's just terrible to think like that. I don't think it's self-evident at all. Just because we can doesn't mean it's right or that we should. I really don't understand why you think it gives us privilages.


"4. Abusing this privilege is not only wrong, it's dangerous. We should be responsible and intelligent about our choices, because resources are finite."

This is good, but not reality, sadly enough.

"5. Killing for food is not an abuse of our privileges, in fact, it's the closest one to nature we have.
6. Excessive, unnecessary cruelty IS abuse"

I believe number 5 is number 6 for the simple reason that animals feel pain, and DO experience a great deal of long-term emotional trauma and stress, and because we don't need to kill them to live.

"7. Incidental harm caused is NOT abuse"

If we know it's happening it is.

"9. When reasonable controls are held, it's actually to the benefit of both us AND the species of animals that we use. We protect them, they feed us. Symbiosis is a beautiful thing. True, it royally screws a lot of individual members, but the overall cost/benefits to the species are quite favorable."

But we don't only use a couple, when we use a species we tend to enslave it completely, and destroy everything natural they had, and ultimately, kill them all. That is NOT symbiosis, period. Maybe that's your ideal, but that is FAR from the reality.

My basic stance is really simple. It's wrong to cause unnecessary pain. We can live without meat. Therefore, eating meat is wrong.

Another argument you didn't address was how poor eating meat is for the economy, and how it isn't at all the easiest way to live.

I like how you ask me to point out any arguments you missed, and then ignored me when I did. I mean, you really seem to reply to one of several of my arguments, ignore the rest, and conclude that you're right. That's pretty frustrating.

[omnitarian]

"9. When reasonable controls are held, it's actually to the benefit of both us AND the species of animals that we use. We protect them, they feed us. Symbiosis is a beautiful thing. True, it royally screws a lot of individual members, but the overall cost/benefits to the species are quite favorable."

But we don't only use a couple, when we use a species we tend to enslave it completely, and destroy everything natural they had, and ultimately, kill them all. That is NOT symbiosis, period. Maybe that's your ideal, but that is FAR from the reality.

What makes you think that a dependent and/or obligatory relationship can't be mutually symbiotic?