British Heart Foundation Peak District Ride

Sonic 'edge'hog

Tony Raven wrote:
> Sonic wrote:
>
>>
>> Probably most animals have no sense of freedom, as such, so can't be
>> enslaved. As long as their interest in expressing their normal
>> behavior is catered for, they are essentially free.
>>
>
> You are Aristotle and ICMFP.
>
> Tony
>
> http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/bl...isplay.cfm?id=6
>
> The Greek philosopher Aristotle developed a justification for slavery
> that would have profound consequences for the future. This was the
> notion of the "natural slave." Slaves, in Aristotle's view, lacked the
> higher qualities of the soul necessary for freedom. Slavery was not only
> good for the master, according to Aristotle, it was also good for
> slaves, who received the guidance and discipline they were incapable of
> providing themselves.


Failed strawman argument. IKMFP!

Slaves, by definition are people. Aristotle was refering to human
slaves, and is wrong. Humans understand freedom.

If you can demonstrate that most animals understand freedom then I'm wrong.

Tony Raven

Sonic 'edge'hog wrote:
>
> Failed strawman argument. IKMFP!
>
> Slaves, by definition are people. Aristotle was refering to human
> slaves, and is wrong. Humans understand freedom.

Aristotle convinced himself otherwise as did many many people who
followed him in history and believed human slaves were sub-human

>
> If you can demonstrate that most animals understand freedom then I'm wrong.
>

Its difficult for us to know whether they do or not. However the one
group that we have been able to communicate with - the signing great
apes - have shown an understanding of freedom:

"In April 1998, Koko was the first nonhuman to go live on the Internet.
She answered questions about her life and hopes, her desire for a baby
and her dreams of freedom."

Before that they were thought to not be capable of such concepts and
emotions. Are we making the same mistake with species discrimination as
we used to make with race, gender, sexuality discrimination?

Tony

Sonic edge

Tony Raven wrote:
> Sonic 'edge'hog wrote:
>
>>
>> Failed strawman argument. IKMFP!
>>
>> Slaves, by definition are people. Aristotle was refering to human
>> slaves, and is wrong. Humans understand freedom.
>
>
> Aristotle convinced himself otherwise as did many many people who
> followed him in history and believed human slaves were sub-human

Very true.

>
>>
>> If you can demonstrate that most animals understand freedom then I'm
>> wrong.
>>
>
> Its difficult for us to know whether they do or not.

Very difficult, so I tend err on the "they do" side, as we discover more
about different species, we find they a lot more in common than thought
possible.

However the one
> group that we have been able to communicate with - the signing great
> apes - have shown an understanding of freedom:
>
> "In April 1998, Koko was the first nonhuman to go live on the Internet.
> She answered questions about her life and hopes, her desire for a baby
> and her dreams of freedom."

I was careful in what I wrote. "Probably most animals have no sense of
freedom", as I realise some do.

>
> Before that they were thought to not be capable of such concepts and
> emotions. Are we making the same mistake with species discrimination as
> we used to make with race, gender, sexuality discrimination?

Very good question, and one you appear to have thought about. :-)

I attempt not to discriminate by species (other than understanding what
peculiar interests they may have).

For example humans have an interest in being free, as they understand
freedom. A worm has an interest in avoiding pain and not being killed,
but does not understand 'freedom', so does not have that interest.

Pigs have an interest in having psychological stimulation, etc.

So yes, 'we' are making the same mistake by species discrimination, and
not understanding or taking into account all interests.
That's one reason why we should not vivisect, kill, abuse other beings
because of their membership of a particular species. 'We' should
consider all interests and where there may be a conflict, resolve it to
the best of our ability, assessing all alternative strategies.

A pig's interest in being alive, avoiding pain, and having psychological
stimulation, for example, is much greater than my gastronomic interest
in it. So I have selected alternatives that I'm fortunate to have, so
avoiding that particular conflict. - What effect do your life decisions
have on other beings interests, and have you attemted to minimise any
conflict?





>
> Tony
>
>

Tony Raven

Sonic edge wrote:
>
> For example humans have an interest in being free, as they understand
> freedom. A worm has an interest in avoiding pain and not being killed,
> but does not understand 'freedom', so does not have that interest.
>
> Pigs have an interest in having psychological stimulation, etc.
>

So you know how worms and pigs think and feel? Fascinating. Is it
residual memories from previous incarnations?

Tony

Sonic edge

Tony Raven wrote:
> Sonic edge wrote:
>
>>
>> For example humans have an interest in being free, as they understand
>> freedom. A worm has an interest in avoiding pain and not being killed,
>> but does not understand 'freedom', so does not have that interest.
>>
>> Pigs have an interest in having psychological stimulation, etc.
>>
>
> So you know how worms and pigs think and feel? Fascinating. Is it
> residual memories from previous incarnations?

Why have resorted to unethical snipping and sarcasm? Were you faced with
a question you can't or don't want to answer? Have the decency to at
least to acknowledge my question, I won't even press you for an answer.

BTW. There's evidence of pigs having psychological needs, and worms do
have a well developed nervous system. So I do have enough information to
conclude what their likely interests are (not what they think and feel).


>
> Tony
>

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:05:52 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com>
wrote in message <32lg60F3p286tU1@individual.net>:

>Of course if you had the courage of your convictions you wouldn't switch
>to posting under a totally anonymous name just for this topic. Now I
>wonder which of the urc members uses PlusNet and Thunderbird v0.8
>(Windows/20040913)?

Please sir! I know sir!

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales