Dolphin Massacre(warning: very graphic!)

[WanderingKnight]

You missed the point.
The point I was trying to make was that, while humans are superior to animals, we shouldn't let that go to our heads, because we pull plenty of stupid crap ourselves.

But if killing animals can solve part of the "stupid crap" (i.e. food), then I'd be the first to shoot.

Originally Posted by Fome

I think you've all misunderstood the issue. I'll give you a hint: it has NOTHING to do with an animal's sentience or ability to feel emotion.

It is the fact that the strong will always dominate the weak, as long as there are no negative consequences for the aggressor. The only reason humans are frequently unwilling to kill other humans is that they fear social retribution (aka, jail time).

What about the so-called virtuous people that believe in absolute morals, like "murder is wrong"? What rubbish. They've created subconscious devices in their minds early in their childhood as a precaution, so they are always reminded not to cross that line. Their fear of punishment is so ingrained, so immutable, that it takes the form of the fiction of "ethics." When you watch the news and see "atrocities" of ethnic cleansing, why is it that you feel angry? It is because your own fear of killing makes you subconsciously jealous when someone else is doing what you won't.

Dolphins are worthless, just like people. But unlike people, they won't throw you in jail, attack you in your home with mobs, or create plans for vengeance when you kill them. So I don't see what is stopping anyone.

Animals don't feel, or at least we are unable to understand how they feel.

However, as humans, we have something animals don't have. And that is rational thinking. We are able, to some (great) extent, to isolate ourselves from our basic emotions, from the very core of our animal origin, so that we may base our actions on rational thinking. And the development rational thinking leads to something that is sometimes really hard to do: the intention of putting oneself in the position of the other. By doing so, people may have a complete different approach on the consequences of their actions, and thus might reconsider such actions in the light of this new approach.

Is this rational thinking "artificial", as you somehow tried to define it? Yes, it is, since it's something we've built to separate ourselves from our animal origins. However, if this rational thinking might some time bring about a true equal society (not the capitalist bullshit we are seeing today), where no relations of power are forged, then I'll side with this artifice at first chance.

[Fome]

Wanderingknight, I'm glad you understand my point, that empathy is superficial. But I will not agree with you that this artifice leads to ANYTHING of value. You seem under the impression that this device somehow makes us "better" than animals, while in reality, it is just another layer of complexity that is still just an expression of our original animal instincts.

For example, I will use Jinto Lin's scenario to illustrate. When given the choice to participate in ethnic cleansing, or be executed, he stated that a soldier can follow a "higher" level of thinking, the level of true morality, by refusing to kill and be killed instead. But is this really "higher" thinking? At the most rudimentary level of our psyche, a human being constantly makes involuntary associations. When he sees another human suffering, he cannot help but fear that the same harmful circumstances can inflict himself. In many cases, this instinctual association is conducive to survival, since one man's peril is often indicative of danger to others as well. However, this primal reflex becomes so ingrained in our minds that we cannot learn to adapt to situations that are not like this. We make the jump, from "he gets hurt = I also get hurt" to "hurting anything = bad," not because we are smart, but in fact, because we are stupid. This is a mindless association that doesn't always hold true. Sometimes, hurting something doesn't make ANY difference to our personal well being.

So why did the soldier choose his own death over killing another person? Simply because his artifice was so strong that it overode it's original intent, to protect himself. Some call this noble; I call it moronic. Who else, but a moron, could let his own survival mechanism backfire, killing himself? Oh yeah, all of humanity, myself included.

People ought learn to separate logically the actions that actually matter from those that are just the result of an overactive, primitive survival instinct.

[Knightmare213]

In this forum, someone said that the only thing that separates us from the monkeys is language. However, while I could spend my free time trying to argue with him, I want to agree with WanderingKnight. That's what separates us from most of the animals in the world: ability to think rationally.

While some, like Fome, believe that humans are nothing and the dolphins and other animals are worthless. Fome isn't alone in that philosophical thinking. A philosopher (whose name I can't recall) believed that animals were no different than an alarm clock. If it screamed in pain, it would merely be an artificial way to express itself as an artificial being. The philosopher in question believed that humans were the only ones who were not artificial, that we were the only ones that were real. However, his thinking can be questioned very easily: how do know if the animals are artificial if our experiences are limited as a human being?

Also, saying that humans are not afraid of any animals...that's very questionable. As some may think that humans are top of the food chain...sorry to disappoint, but we ain't. Our skin is not made out of metal or any equally stronger material. It's flesh. And do you have any idea how many animals in the wild can kill us? If we aren't afraid of sharks, why are we diving in a cage? If we are not afraid of tigers, why are we not approaching them and trying to pet them? If we are not afraid of a viper, why the hell aren't all of us have them a large cage within our homes and running freely around the house like a pet puppy? Just merely saying that we are not afraid of anything is just...premature.

I'm not saying this to insult you, Fome, or anyone else. But if I had, then I'm sorry. Every single life on Earth has one thing in common: death. Humans either die in two major ways: die naturally or die unnaturally. Some people can go and live more than a century before they wake up dead. Some people can die instantly or slowly due to either a cancer or a slow and gruesome murder. Incidentally, it's same for the animals as well. They can go as long as they can before they can't no more. They can also die because of either we killed them. They can they because they were eaten a predator, and animals and humans can die in a way that I can't remotely even imagine.

Also, anyone else find out why the dolphins bleed like that? When the Faroe Islanders kill the beached dolphins, they slice a point behind their 'breathing hole.' When they do that, they slice the dolphins' spine and the main artery. That's why they bleed so much. And when a picture of blood-mixed sea with dead dolphins is taken...let's just say, "A picture is worth a thousand words."


EDIT AFTER WK: I also had a thought that Fome was following a Nietzsche-style philosophy. While I have my own kind of philosophy (although I think there is a group of philosophers who had influenced me in the past, one being a Chinese philosopher named Mencius), I also have a personal ideal saying that I have to respect what everyone says. I won't suppress, I'll argue.

[WanderingKnight]

@Fome:

You seem to think rational thinking is based on personal survival. I, on the other hand, consider it to be completely devoid of any kind of subjectivity--logical thinking is always objective. We can argue a thousand years about the objectivity of factual sciences--but formal sciences (logic and mathematics) are unarguably objective. Animals lack the capacity to link two thoughts into a logical conclusion (in fact, they may as well not think at all). By logical conclusion, I mean a conclusion that goes beyond the direct consequence of any action they take--a conclusion that may make the animal think about the universality of such consequence, for example. That's why I consider logical thought something completely beyond the capabilities of instincts, as artificial they might be.

PS: I observe your thoughts to be based roughly in Nietzsche's conception of human being and the truths they fabricate--I have to admit that while following that line of thought, your conclusion is absolutely correct, however, I have a personal conflict with Nietzsche, due to being the founder of relativism, which is probably the main form of thought behind today's cold and cruel capitalist system.

[Fome]

@WanderingKnight:

If humans really are capable of perceiving the universality of our actions, we wouldn't abide by stupid absolutes, like "thou shalt not murder, lie, covet, steal, etc." How many lies could be told that would hurt no one? Yet there are countless people in this world that believe that under no circumstances should you lie. This sounds nothing like the objective logic you're championing as our redeeming factor. It sounds more like blind adherence to....nothing. Nothing but the little voice in our paranoid heads that tells us "you should never lie." If people were truly objectively logical, they would learn that there are exceptions to EVERYTHING. In fact, killing dolphins is probably a prime example of one of those exceptions.

PS: You're definitely right about the cold, cruel world this kind of thinking creates. That's why those like me depend on the existance of morally oriented people to be happy. Damn, it would suck if everyone thought like me.
And although my beliefs are similar to the writtings of Nietzsche, I don't fully agree with his idea of the uberman, someone who can rise above worldly fabrications. Even acknowledging your slavery to the falsehoods won't free you from them.

@Knightmare
I really think you've misunderstood me. I don't believe that humans are fearless, but that often the reason they behave the way they do is because they are stronger, or think they are stronger, than what they are subduing at that moment in time. This is a given. The argument was whether this was "ethical."

And I don't appreciate being compared to a philospher who believes humans are different from animals. The Crimson Alchemist said it best: "None of us have any value. Not you. Not me. We're all worthless."

[WanderingKnight]

And I don't appreciate being compared to a philospher who believes humans are different from animals. The Crimson Alchemist said it best: "None of us have any value. Not you. Not me. We're all worthless."

I don't know if this was directed towards Knightmare or me, but Nietzsche's main idea of the status of human being, is that of its status as a beast.

If humans really are capable of perceiving the universality of our actions, we wouldn't abide by stupid absolutes, like "thou shalt not murder, lie, covet, steal, etc." How many lies could be told that would hurt no one? Yet there are countless people in this world that believe that under no circumstances should you lie. This sounds nothing like the objective logic you're championing as our redeeming factor. It sounds more like blind adherence to....nothing. Nothing but the little voice in our paranoid heads that tells us "you should never lie." If people were truly objectively logical, they would learn that there are exceptions to EVERYTHING. In fact, killing dolphins is probably a prime example of one of those exceptions.

You see, that's because today's world is ruled by the relativist conceptions of capitalism. I'm not talking about some kind of universal religious rule we should abide because some kind of power forces it on us. No, I'm talking about a society where every human being is truly free, within its bounds, with no rules. The non-existence of rules presupposes human beings to prevent themselves, using their rational knowledge, from harming other human beings.

Religion has also made its way within our current society, and as it claims adherence to symbols and supernatural beings whose existence can't be proven (either one way or the other), it leads to ignorance within the society. Society today is still fresh, it's still too early, but as Marx claimed, society evolves. Society improves. I'm convinced that the percentage of ignorant people in today's world is by far less than the percentage of ignorant people a hundred or so years ago. I was talking about pretty abstract concepts there, and by no means I expect myself to be guiding my actions only by rational thinking--but this can change as society evolves. In a near future, capitalism will be no more than a memory from the past, and another economic system will have stepped in, and even while it still might retain relations of power within itself, its concentration will have dissipated a bit, as it has happened throughout the ages. Call me an optimist, but I'd rather think like that, than lower my hands and say "There's nothing that can be done, everything is justifiable".

[Fome]

The quoted sentence at the top of your post was directed at Knigtmare, so don't worry, you're right about your comparison.

Yeah, I agree with you about the state of society nowadays. But I really do think you're too optimistic, like you said. I mean, how can a society "where every human being is truly free, within its bounds, with no rules," exist, as long as even a speck of beast-like nature persists (and in my mind, it's far more than a speck). Like you said, people aren't completely rational, but that has nothing to do with society. People today may know more about the universe than those living a millenium ago, but we still carry with us the desire to rule over others, to have more than we currently own, to destroy those we despise. Of course, in my line of thinking, none of these are negative traits, but they seriously impede man's progression into the world you imagine. Unless you're referring to genetic modifications to change that, which I honestly have no problem with. I just think that most people wouldn't accept it.

[WanderingKnight]

Yeah, I might be a little too optimistic, but I firmly believe that humans are not chained by anything at all. That everything is possible. That changes are possible. If I didn't believe that at my age, it'd just depress me terribly.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Fome

...
For example, I will use Jinto Lin's scenario to illustrate. When given the choice to participate in ethnic cleansing, or be executed, he stated that a soldier can follow a "higher" level of thinking, the level of true morality, by refusing to kill and be killed instead. But is this really "higher" thinking?
...

I said higher morality, not higher thinking. The thoughts behind this decission, can be very subconcious.

Originally Posted by Fome

...At the most rudimentary level of our psyche, a human being constantly makes involuntary associations. When he sees another human suffering, he cannot help but fear that the same harmful circumstances can inflict himself.
...

Again, you seem to be posessed by fear. Try to think differently. Once you see yourself in your victim, and you kill him/her... you'ld kill a part of yourself. The better you can identify with your victim, the more you'ld kill the personality inside you. Because a direct attack on another persons life (being similar to yours), means an attack to yourself. Not physically but mentally/philosophically. See a human not just as a function or device... but as something that is to a certain extend a part of yourself. If there were no humans in this world... or lets assume if there wasn't anything else except you. You could not even define yourself, because there is no feedback, nothing to observe. Without environment, social life and interaction in general, you'ld not be able to be a personality. You influence others, and others influence you... you are a part of others, as they are part of you... you kill someone quite similar to you... you killed what defined yourself (how can you live with the inconsistency to have someone killed, that lived like you, and live on, without destroying what defines yourself?) I think fear is not the answer to everything.

Originally Posted by Fome

... In many cases, this instinctual association is conducive to survival, since one man's peril is often indicative of danger to others as well. However, this primal reflex becomes so ingrained in our minds that we cannot learn to adapt to situations that are not like this.
...

There are people like this. But there are also people who would refuse because it is their principe (or even go further, e.g. I'ld likely choose active resistance). Again its a problem of how much you are able to give up yourself in the process, or try to fight for your true self. You can either surrender to your fear, and live a "unworthy" over-directed life that has no meaning, or give it a meaning and fight for it. Sacrificing your life for the cause, is also a statement, that clearly shows you fought for yourself (even though your physical and mental self ends at this point... but that would have happened for your mental self anyway...)

Originally Posted by Fome

...We make the jump, from "he gets hurt = I also get hurt" to "hurting anything = bad," not because we are smart, but in fact, because we are stupid. This is a mindless association that doesn't always hold true. Sometimes, hurting something doesn't make ANY difference to our personal well being.
...

And that "sometimes", is not always driven by fear

[Fome]

@Jinto Lin

Even with your examples, I still see everything as primarily fear driven. But before I start, let my clarify my definition of fear. It is the desire to avoid some sort of pain. And I equate pain with the absence of pleasure. In others, you feel bad whenever you don't feel good.

When I view others as extensions of myself, I cannot harm them because I fear harming myself. And when you try to give meaning to your life and fight for it, it is driven by the fear of a meaningless life, which is really a groundless fear, since life has no meaning. In any case, you seek pleasure, which is the absence of pain, but you can easily feel pleasure without giving yourself any purpose. I live everday in a out just existing, feeling the results of countless chemical reactions that deliver to me the sensation of pleasure. I don't pretend it's anything else. If you think I live a shallow life, you must also believe you are living a more meaningful (and by extension happier) life, in which case I would ask you kindly to quantify your happiness and compare it with mine.

[WanderingKnight]

^ I just remembered another philosopher, Schopenhauer, who is best known as the founder of pessimism xD. His line of thought also fits into what you've just said. I clearly see all your influences now.

[gummybear]

I was set straight about animal killing a few years back by these in-sights:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=eatme

[Fome]

Haha, I love you gummybear.

[wingdarkness]

Originally Posted by gummybear

I was set straight about animal killing a few years back by these in-sights:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=eatme

That's hilarious xD...

[SiL Eighty]

You know whats cool! Boiling lobsters while they are still alive!!!! They are so tasty too!

[Ewok]

Without looking I know its the video from Futo taken by the guys at Sea Shepard.

There's a number of reasons why I don't like it -
These dolphins are suffering - cows, sheep and chickens are usually killed with the aim of preventing suffering. Some countries recently created new laws for the prevention of cruelty when cooking lobsters and crabs, and we all know that dolphins are far more intelligent.

They are being slaughtered illegally and for no reason - the fishermen will say that its because they are destroying fish stocks - they aren't, the local fish stocks have been wiped out by years of irresponsible and greedy overfishing. There are quotas on the number of dolphins that may be killed, and there is doubts that they are recognising these limits - the number of dolphins as well as the number of fish in the area have been falling for years.

They know its wrong - they try their damnest to keep people with cameras out. The average Japanese person loves dolphins and would feel as sick and angered by this footage as anyone else, so its kept tightly under wraps. Sad innit?

Just remember this video is not representative of Japanese people, merely a small group of people who do this horrible act. Sadly plenty of people know about this, but don't take action meaning it just continues year after year.

[Fome]

Ewok, I'm just wondering, if it's illegal, and they have this on video, have/could the cops just nabbed those guys?

[FatPianoBoy]

Originally Posted by gummybear

I was set straight about animal killing a few years back by these in-sights:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=eatme

Thread over?

[ImClueless]

Yeah once Maddox gets sourced the discussion is effectively over.

[gummybear]

sowwie, but I had to quote the great Maddox because I am just sick and tied of people keep pointing fingers on "OMIGOSH THESE PEOPLE ARE CUTTING _____ OPEN, AND IT LOOKS SO PAINFUL". You know what, I have high doubt "at least we treat our meat source right". You are still going to strip the meat off their bodies, cook them, then crew them and use your stomach acid to melt them down so your body can absorbe what you need from the meat. There will always be people in the world that make you feel guilty about any meat product. You know what, looks like these little guys got life worst then the dolphins, at least the dolphins got their freedom before they were food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bri371LFqX8

Now listen to the boobies.... I mean lady, LADY!