Yes, it is theological, because if you believe that there is something immaterial about you that could have existed as something else, it is a religious position, as this is not backed up by science.

Ok, think of it this way, then, if you want science. The multiverse is everything that could have happened, and there's some happening where you spawned in as a cow.

Go ahead and let the cow know then, I'm sure it'd still wander around eating grass and be perfectly fine with it.

You can't let the cow know, furthermore, do you doubt that they value their lives? It would be evolutionarilly bad if they didn't.

Using this argument as a justification for the holocaust is only irrational because one of the premises is wrong.

The premise that is wrong is one in both, the middle one. Even if all Jews were worse in all ways than Germans, that's no pardon for killing them.

humans are obviously superior to animals in basically every respect.

Just since someone is stronger than you doesn't mean that you should lose all rights, even though it's what happens. It's called empathy. You lack empathy. Do what you would like to have done, and don't do what you don't want to not be done.

If we can help nature without sacrificing ourselves, than we should do all we can. But to turn on each other for the sake of that cause is just paradoxical.

I agree, but the path of least bloodspill is evidently the better one. 6k million onetime, or 60k+ million each year?

You can't let the cow know, furthermore, do you doubt that they value their lives? It would be evolutionarilly bad if they didn't.

Cows as we know them are essentially a human creation, not the product of evolution. We've selectively bred them to be huge versions of their wild selves.

And no, I don't think that cows give a crap if they live or die. And unless you can give some proof that they do, there's no reason to think otherwise.

Ok, think of it this way, then, if you want science. The multiverse is everything that could have happened, and there's some happening where you spawned in as a cow.

Multiverses aren't scientific. And even in that case, unless there is something immaterial tying your cow self and human self together, there are are two separate beings of which the human one is you, not one being in two different bodies.

The premise that is wrong is one in both, the middle one.

This premise is almost universally accepted as being true though. Even vegetarians and vegans accept that killing plants is morally justifiable.

>goes into the "Assassination of British Labour MP Jo Cox" thread
>finds himself in the middle of a religious debate

oh well, my condolences to the Rosbifs, I hate those extremists.

Cows as we know them are essentially a human creation, not the product of evolution. We've selectively bred them to be huge versions of their wild selves.

So what?

And no, I don't think that cows give a crap if they live or die.

Why on Earth wouldn't they? Legitimately, why wouldn't you think that cows value their life? That's why they run away from whatever predators they have, or whatever is hurting them. If you stab a cow with a knife, he won't just stand there.

Multiverses aren't scientific.

They very much are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

there is something immaterial tying your cow self and human self together, there are are two separate beings of which the human one is you, not one being in two different bodies.

And you could have been either one of them.

This premise is almost universally accepted as being true though. Even vegetarians and vegans accept that killing plants is morally justifiable.

Just since it's how most folk think doesn't make it right. Vegetarians aren't morally allowed to kill shrubs just since they can, but since shrubs don't have any being or thinking or happening of life.

So what?

You said something like "Cows value life because of evolution".

Why on Earth wouldn't they? Legitimately, why wouldn't you think that cows value their life? That's why they run away from whatever predators they have, or whatever is hurting them. If you stab a cow with a knife, he won't just stand there.

I wouldn't say that they really value their life, but rather that they don't like the pain that comes with being stabbed. I doubt the cow has any idea what will happen if it stands there, since cows aren't able to transfer their thoughts to other cows like people are to other people.

They very much are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Something isn't scientific until you can actually offer proof for it. Since literally by definition you can't interact with the "other worlds", it can never be scientific, So let's just stick to what we know and not assume that whack ass theories are true as well.

Just since it's how most folk think doesn't make it right.

No, but in the minds of most people it will be right, which is honestly all that can be said for basically anything.

Vegetarians aren't morally allowed to kill shrubs just since they can, but since shrubs don't have any being or thinking or happening of life.

Actually, most vegetarians are totally okay with killing innocent plants just to make their yards look nicer.

Edited 6/17/2016 19:51:52

>goes into the "Assassination of British Labour MP Jo Cox" thread
>finds himself in the middle of a religious debate

oh well, my condolences to the Rosbifs, I hate those extremists.

You got it perfectly Stewie...

You said something like "Cows value life because of evolution".

It's not been bred out of them, and furthermore, anyone who wants to die is mentally ill anyway, and it's cruel to push or breed folk to the brink like that, in my thought.

I wouldn't say that they really value their life, but rather that they don't like the pain that comes with being stabbed.

I wouldn't care so much if they die without knowing they die, like in their sleep, but consistency, it shouldn't be a crime to have a human die in their sleep from poison nor should it be for wildlife, or perhaps both crimes.

Something isn't scientific until you can actually offer proof for it.

No, it's proof when you can offer something to prove it. Many-Worlds Understanding isn't like Islaam or Christianity or anything, it's something that is logically believed. Without going too much into something I can't really talk about (nor can you), but this is something talked about in *theoretic* phys today, or do you think of that not a science, either?

but in the minds of most people it will be right, which is honestly all that can be said for basically anything.

What's this mean?

Actually, most vegetarians are totally okay with killing innocent plants just to make their yards look nicer.

Yes, since the great majority of shrubs literally can't feel anything (and the ones that do, not really).

I wouldn't care so much if they die without knowing they die, like in their sleep, but consistency, it shouldn't be a crime to have a human die in their sleep from poison nor should it be for wildlife, or perhaps both crimes.

I doubt cows have any idea what's going on while they're dying.

No, it's proof when you can offer something to prove it. Many-Worlds Understanding isn't like Islaam or Christianity or anything, it's something that is logically believed. Without going too much into something I can't really talk about (nor can you), but this is something talked about in *theoretic* phys today, or do you think of that not a science, either?

We can logically prove a lot of things, that doesn't make them true. Until there is actually some sort of proof, as in some sort of relic from an alternate world, it is psuedo-science, not science. Psuedo-science is not valuable when discussing things in the context of the real world.

Yes, since the great majority of shrubs literally can't feel anything (and the ones that do, not really).

It doesn't matter how you qualify something as being inferior to you. If you believe that it is okay to kill something and eat it, you are acknowledging that that thing is inferior. If you believed that something was equal to you, then it's silly to assume that it shouldn't have equal rights to you, such as the right to not be killed. The only way to solve this dilemma is to just say that plants are inferior to humans.

And in fact, this applies to even things which has never been alive. To breathe in a moral manner you have to acknowledge that the air you are breathing is inferior to you, since if it is afforded equal rights to humans, it's obviously pretty problematic to use it for our own breathing without acknowledging it's basic rights.

I doubt cows have any idea what's going on while they're dying.

That's a naif doubt, why on Earth wouldn't they? It's an ending of their life in which they want to go on, and in a cruel and bulk way.

We can logically prove a lot of things, that doesn't make them true. Until there is actually some sort of proof, as in some sort of relic from an alternate world, it is psuedo-science, not science. Psuedo-science is not valuable when discussing things in the context of the real world.

Are you really classing theoretic phys as "pseudoscience"?

It doesn't matter how you qualify something as being inferior to you. If you believe that it is okay to kill something and eat it, you are acknowledging that that thing is inferior.

Uh, no, I don't actually think about anything. It's a lower lifeform, but that's not the justification for killing.

And in fact, this applies to even things which has never been alive. To breathe in a moral manner you have to acknowledge that the air you are breathing is inferior to you, since if it is afforded equal rights to humans, it's obviously pretty problematic to use it for our own breathing without acknowledging it's basic rights.

Um, air has no "soul", the sky has no brain, I told all this already, I don't care about killing germs or literally brainless wildlife like any kind of embryo, or microbes, or stuff like that, and even then, some exceptions (how strong is their brain?).

The core difference: will the sky run away if you start to eat it?

You lack empathy, just put yourself in the bull's boots and see how you'd like it.

That's a naif doubt, why on Earth wouldn't they? It's an ending of their life in which they want to go on, and in a cruel and bulk way.

They don't want anything. They twitch when you hurt them because this is instinctive in practically everything that had the capability to do so (Even dead frog legs twitch when you put salt on them). This does not mean that they deserve empathy.

Are you really classing theoretic phys as "pseudoscience"?

It's far from a widely accepted theory, and literally not possible to make observations about or conduct experiments on, which is the definition of "Science":

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:"

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science)

Something cannot be scientific if you cannot make observations about it or conduct experiments on it. And you're right, Perhaps "psuedoscience" is granting it too much. A better word would be something like "theory" or "story".

Uh, no, I don't actually think about anything. It's a lower lifeform, but that's not the justification for killing.

Yes, that is. You may have reasons that you believe that it is inferior (it doesn't have a brain), or you may have something practical you want to do with it (eat it), but the point is you cannot kill something without implicitly or explicitly acknowledging that it is inferior to you.

You lack empathy, just put yourself in the bull's boots and see how you'd like it.

Obviously if you were in a bulls position you would not want to be killed, but the sole reason for that is because you are not a bull. Bulls obviously could care less. You can't assume that less intelligent beings are capable of having complex thoughts and feelings about situations as you are.

Edited 6/17/2016 23:47:24

They don't want anything. They twitch when you hurt them because this is instinctive in practically everything that had the capability to do so (Even dead frog legs twitch when you put salt on them). This does not mean that they deserve empathy.

If they have a brain, if they feel things, then they very much earn a very basic amount of empathy.

It's far from a widely accepted theory, and literally not possible to make observations about or conduct experiments on, which is the definition of "Science"

That's why it's called theoretic, it's all mind experiments and truths. Roughly half all scientists in the field believe in this, I'd wager they're not all water-poisoned or something, this is something that's talked about it the physic science community.

You may have reasons that you believe that it is inferior (it doesn't have a brain)

He can excel in other ways. If bears had no brain, I wouldn't mind eating them, even though they could clobber me (thus the "superiour" specie). Just it being a lower life doesn't justify anything, the only thing that justifies it is if the life does not care.

Obviously if you were in a bulls position you would not want to be killed, but the sole reason for that is because you are not a bull.

Um, no, it's called life wants to live on and make babies. You are really naif if you think that all lives with a brain don't have any kind of will to live. Why on Earth wouldn't they have that? It would be evolutionarily bad not to have that.

You can't assume that less intelligent beings are capable of having complex thoughts and feelings about situations as you are.

There are many experiments done on this, in short, for the most part, mamms definitely a Checkmark for feelings and thoughts. Furthermore, doesn't even need feelings or thoughts, what is needed is just a freedom from pain. Imagine if you were born, but then wrapped up in pain for the rest of your life. You don't know if you're human or not. You could be a puppy or bunny, but you don't have time to think, all you can think about is pain. Justify that cruelty.

Frankly, your arguments are "Since we're bigger, we can clobber them", while I'm saying to hold some empathy.

If they have a brain, if they feel things, then they very much earn a very basic amount of empathy.

It doesn't matter what they feel if they don't give a crap about it. In fact, there's no reason to believe that animals even feel pain in the sense that humans do. We know that they react to pain, but honestly it's pretty human-centric to try to impose our ideas of experiencing pain on being that are far less intelligent than ourselves.

That's why it's called theoretic, it's all mind experiments and truths. Roughly half all scientists in the field believe in this, I'd wager they're not all water-poisoned or something, this is something that's talked about it the physic science community.

It doesn't matter if they believe it, because it can't be proven unless we can observe it and conduct experiments on it. You can't simply assume that some theory is true for the purpose of a debate, even if a significant amount of people believe it to be true without proof. If this was a valid thing to do, I would probably be pulling some bible verses on you.

I believe your point was that I am a cow in an alternate universe. This is obviously an unprovable fact which is unable to be observed or experimented on, and therefore can't be assumed as being true for the purpose of our debate.

He can excel in other ways. If bears had no brain, I wouldn't mind eating them, even though they could clobber me (thus the "superiour" specie). Just it being a lower life doesn't justify anything, the only thing that justifies it is if the life does not care.

Yes, if you can "clobber" someone then you are obviously superior. However, we are superior, as we have bear traps, we have guns, and we have our awesome brains to help us catch bears and put them in cages for our young to enjoy watching. The result of all of this is taht there have been 27 fatal bear attacks in north america in the last fifteen years, compared to around 15,000 bears which have been killed by humans in the canadian state of british columbia alone (sorry, I really couldn't find better numbers, but you get the point).

Um, no, it's called life wants to live on and make babies. You are really naif if you think that all lives with a brain don't have any kind of will to live. Why on Earth wouldn't they have that? It would be evolutionarily bad not to have that.

Having a "will to live" is a purely human concept. As you mentioned, pretty much all animals are only interested in eating, sleeping, and making babies, they don't really do much as far as "living" in the human sense. There's no reason to believe that these events have any significance to them, or that they are even aware that they are alive.

There are many experiments done on this, in short, for the most part, mamms definitely a Checkmark for feelings and thoughts. Furthermore, doesn't even need feelings or thoughts, what is needed is just a freedom from pain. Imagine if you were born, but then wrapped up in pain for the rest of your life. You don't know if you're human or not. You could be a puppy or bunny, but you don't have time to think, all you can think about is pain. Justify that cruelty.

I won't imagine this, as it is just another thinly veiled attempt to equate animals with humans, which IMO is completely nonsensical.

Frankly, your arguments are "Since we're bigger, we can clobber them", while I'm saying to hold some empathy.

I never said anything about being bigger. Humans are pretty small as far as creatures go. It's that we're just inherently superior to all animals, even big giant elephants and whales, which we are very capable of capturing and putting in cages.

@Imperator

The logic itself is not hateful. You can use it in innocent ways, for example to claim that it is not morally wrong to mow your lawn. Or, in my case, that killing and eating animals is not morally wrong.

You can also apply it in hateful ways, such as saying that all jews deserve to die. This does not make the logic itself hateful, it makes hateful applications of the logic hateful. This is practically true of all logic, and is nothing special with this particular piece of logic. Take for example this one:

"Horses are not intelligent enough to get human jobs"

Well will you look at that, this observation becomes an extremely antisemitic nazi propoganda statement if you replace "horses" with "jews":

"Jews are not intelligent enough to get human jobs"

I stand corrected on the logic front. Well argued.

@Prussian

''It's called equality, that all men and beings are equal.''
Absolutely satanic.

Correct, this is the viewpoint of (real) Satanists. What's your point?

@Eklipse

I might have gotten more heated than I should have, but I still stand by every word I said.

Don't worry about getting heated, you're a pleasant enough person to debate with. And a lot more polite than some.

If you honestly believe that everyone who eats cheeseburgers needs to die, just for that reason alone, than you are indeed a Sociopath.

I can honestly say that this is precisely how I feel. While I may possess a few characteristics of a sociopath (10 or 11/18 according to http://healthguidance.org (I had a look out of curiosity)), I generally keep my opinions to myself unless they're asked for or in debates such as this. I have the intelligence to not go running outside and start killing every human I meet, even if it is what I believe the majority of them deserve.

@Xy

"And no, I don't think that cows give a crap if they live or die."

Why on Earth wouldn't they? Legitimately, why wouldn't you think that cows value their life? That's why they run away from whatever predators they have, or whatever is hurting them. If you stab a cow with a knife, he won't just stand there.

Good points there. Many animals will become violent to defend their young. I can't see why they'd do this if they didn't value the lives of themselves and their offspring.

@Prussian

Animals don't have souls.

Proof, please.

@Stewie

>goes into the "Assassination of British Labour MP Jo Cox" thread
>finds himself in the middle of a religious debate

This is more of a morality and general viewpoints-on-life debate than a religious one. It's still fitting in with the theme of the original post, because some of us believe that killing an "innocent" person based on their ideas is acceptable, and others don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNJ05NfM-4Y

I encourage anyone who supports Britain staying to watch this.

Haha, I'm for Brexit, but I'm not watching some angry pentup stressed out man's blog in front of the map claiming bold things probably without support, either.

Edited 6/19/2016 06:52:20

I stand corrected on the logic front. Well argued.

You know, for someone who supports killing billions of people you're actually a pretty reasonable and chill dude :)

Amazing, isn't it?