:
: : Not at all. Chimps cannot by definition have human intelligence. The moral worth of the human is in any case greater. It is the question of potential capacity that is important here. So much for the 'so much for the mental faculties argument'...: DDN: Potential capacity? A few points here:
: 1) How do YOU know what any animal's or humnan's potential capacity is?
: 2) Potential capacity to do WHAT? Pollute the planet, cause mass unecessary suffering for other animals, etc? How are you measuring intelligence here, its not clear at all.
: 3) Weren't humans once monkey-like creatures? In fact weren't we all just a bunch of lose random atoms swirling around the cosmos at one point? So much for you "potential capacity" argument.
COPE: I clarified these points in a post to locke. cognition in terms of thinking, judging, etc (cognition just means 'mental'). Potential capacity to possess that cognitive ability. So what if we were just monkeys... your point being? Monkeys have some moral worth, but not as much as humanity (or would you rather kill amonkey than a human?). So much for your 'So much for your "potential capacity" argument'
: ---------------------------------------------------
: : : : Now, let me state another general principle: The suffering of a human should not be made subservient to the suffering of an animal.
: : : : A similar consideration applies in relation to the hopi. If the suffering that the hopi must endure as a result of no longer being allowed to sacrifice eagles is greater than the suffering of the eagles then it would be immoral not to let the hopi continue in their ancient practices.
: DDN: But isn't this predicated on the assumption that the eagles are somehow personally RESPONSIBLE for whatever suffering the hopis endure in their absence?
COPE: I don't see how that works daddio. It is really just a utilitarian principle.
: Also, you seem to be assuming, as many people in this room have before, that "suffering" is some sort of absolute constant on this planet - that the sum of all sufferring here, whether it be eagles or hopis, can never be any less than it is right now at this exact point in time.
COPE: Again i am not sure what you are getting at here. My argument is, at base a utilitarian one- who suffers less. As such i was looking at hopi suffering relative to eagle suffering.
: I invite you to examine where this notion of yours is coming from. Its seems illogical in the extreme to me and smacks heavily of the narrowmindedness that is bread by the public school system.
COPE: So you disagree that 'where human suffering outweighs the suffering of an animal the animal should suffer in the humans place'.
YOU are calling ME NARROWMINDED? HA
: Why are you incapable of entertaining the idea that neither the Hopi nor the eagles need to suffer in relation to one another? It worries me to no end that this concept seems out of reach to you and so many other people that debate about animal liberation.
COPE: Why are you incapable of realising that the hopi will suffer greatly if their traditional religous practices are destroyed?
: -------------------------------------------------------------------
: : : Oh the poor Hopi. They can't engage in a religious ritual just so a bird doesn't die a slow and agonizing death. You really know how to tip the scales, Cope.
: : (I wasn't attempting to tip the scales. Merely stating the principle under consideration. A balancing principle with evidence yet to be adduced).
: : Oh yes, great rebuttal. Your arrogance leaves you unable to understand other peoples culture. You seem to think that to the hopi it is just a ritual torture. Your secular bias means that you think religion is less important than an animals life, where to the hopi (and others), their god is by far more important. It is as sacred to them as it is for christians to worship christ.
: DDN: Yes, and we have a right to resist the torture inflicted on us and other living things by both of these organizations. Your speceist bias
Oh i see daddio and YOU HAVE NO SPECIEST BIAS? So if faced with a necessary choice between killing a mosquito and killing a man you would do what? FLIP A COIN???
If the hopi would suffer more by halkting these practices than suffering is caused by these practices, then the hopi must, as a moral principle be allowed to continue.
: has you believing that the often flaky and fluctuating beliefs of human beings justify animal torture.
: -----------------------------------------------------------
:
: : : : An aNIMAL can die only in a physical sense. A human on the other hand can suffer a spiritual as well as a physical demise. Who has ever seen an animal so broken in spirit that they have been unable to raise themselves from their bed or so sunken in despair that they throw themselves off a cliff. I myself have never seen this. (I do not doubt that animals possess some crude form of emotion but i think it a mere trifle in comparison to humanity).
: : : Shows what you know about animals: zip. Anyone who knows animals, from zookeepers to people with pets, knows that animals possess rich emotional lives and can become so depressed, they starve themselves to death. As for souls, I can guarantee you that animals have souls -- it's humans, the only animals who knowingly and willfully torture other animals (including humans) I wonder about.
: : That is just crap. there is noi way in the world you can equate emotional life of an animal to that of a human. Is an animal failing to eat food depression? Or is it more likely something else. Like a form of distress that falls way below any conception of human emotion. Or can you now read the minds of animals?
: DDN: Can YOU? Why are you so sure that your perceptions of an "unknowable" (i.e. animal emotion) are more penetrating than ours, hmmm? At the very least, the evidence presented so far strongly indicates that MDG has had a hell of alot more experience with animals than you have. So should we listen to HIM or to YOU?
COPE: As i do not consider this essential to my argument so i did not bother much with uit, but if you want to an expanded version see my first post to locke.
: When young dolphins die their mothers swim like crazy for days trying to keep the dead corpse afloat until the corpse finally dissinegrates and there's nothing left of it to push against. Is this an act of profound grief or something trivial and painless that we need not conceern ourselves with it? Since APPEARS to be akin to human sufferring, wouldn't it be prudent, until we know otherwise, to assume that it IS akin to human sufferring and hence treat these animals with simular level of respect?
: If we can't make some logical assumptions in the absence of hard core scientific evidence about how other living things experience life and death, then where does that leave us? It leaves us in a pretty piss poor relationship with our environment for starters. And it reminds me that I can't prove that HUMAN sufferring is real EITHER. Sure, I see your eyes bugging out of your head and hear you screaming whenever I burn you at the stake, but are you really in "pain" or is it just some mindless, autonomous response to excessive heat? I choose the latter because in doing so I don't have to change my course of action or current habbits - it means less work for ME. Its called laziness. And in its advanced forms its called "EVIL". Can you say "EVIL", Cope?
COPE: i'll not respond to this until you've read my post in locke. Though i do laugh at how you are attemptin to use a presumptive principle here, the same one that i advocated for use in the hopi case.
: ---------------------------------------------------
: : : : Given what i have read, i believe that there must at least be a presumption that the hopi's very being is so tied to their religous practices that if this sacred practice were to be taken away from them (assuming one could find a way to successfully enforce the rule in any case, see below) they would be left to live in spiritual turmoil. Their existence would be made so base as to not be not worth living. To disallow the practice would drive a wedge between the hopi and their gods. Would you tell a christian they can no longer worship christ?
: DDN: Yes, without hesitation, if that "worship" entailed senseless torture, which it often has.
And what sort of condition would that leave such a person in? What if their very boeing was so connected with te worship of their god that they fell into such a deep depression that they expired a few months later? Or what if they refused to stop and you had to lock them up? IS that ok?
: -------------------------------------------------
: : : The Hopi are human beings. Human beings can adapt. You ought to give them more credit, Mr. Animal-Sacrifice-Is-Essential.
: : This shows what you know about human beings. Perhaps you should associate with them a little more than your animal friends. If someone told you you could no longer practice animals rights activism, how would you feel? Do you think you could adapt to that?
: DDN: This has become rediculous. Anyone that "NEEDS" to torture an animal "NEEDS" to have their head examined, the Hopis included.
COPE: Does anyone 'need' to practice animals rights activism?
Look daddio if you want to go and talk to the hopi and tell them your concerns then i say go ahead. There is however NO WAY that a rational actor could ever advocate a forced stoppal of hopi practices. That would cause way more injustice than allowing the hopi to continue their practices.
Again daddio i ask you how you intend to enforce any law against eagle sacrifice.
None.
