Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Discussions regarding actual culture and history of Earth.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 20 Jun 2015, 20:37

Dolphins and most Great Apes are considered "non-human persons"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhoo ... an_animals
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2435
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Keenir » Sat 20 Jun 2015, 22:30

elemtilas wrote:
Keenir wrote:
elemtilas wrote: Then you are misreading. Note that I did not call a person evil for killing, but rather the action the person has done is evil. And it is, quite simply, an evil action to end the life of a sophont, in our case, a human being. I would say that someone who has zero qualms about killing an intruder or executing a criminal has the more skewed understanding of evil.
so, you'd rather let an intruder kill your family, than feel squeamish or uneasy? [O.O]
Did I say that? Did I not rather say something along the lines of "kill the bastard first before he can close?" [o.O]
my bad then. sorry; mea maxima culpa.
Still, that is a valid choice, to do nothing and let the intruder run his course. Still another choice, and I think a very dangerous one, would be to attempt to neutralise the intruder (by tackling him & removing his weapon). Running away (by jumping out the window) and letting him take your stuff is also a viable choice, and greatly reduces the risk of a death occurring.
I was oft bullied in my youth; two times I was able to bring a bullying "spree"* to a complete stop.
1. the bully swung a fist, and I moved my hand to counter it (more than had been done prior), and I ended up with a damaged finger, which I had to wear in a splint; the bully was suspended, and when he came back, I had an excuse to not participate in gym classes - we were doing gymnastics, which I couldn't do, not with a splint on my middle finger (which also came in handy when I was annoyed with someone)

2. there was a dust-up, each of us took a swing at the other (we were wearing heavy work gloves http://www.pksafety.com/mcr-safety-glove-1411a.html ), and neither of us got more than a scrape; we were each sent home for the rest of the day, docked in pay; but after that, we were good friends - I think it may've been the fact that I was willing to stand up for myself, as well as each of us giving an accurate account of the fight and the lead-up to it, rather than taking the opportunity to tar the other.

My point is that neither of them qualifies as non-violent, or as "turning the other cheek"...and thus, some in this thread would regard my actions as evil.

* = one "spree" was over the course of a school year, the other was more of being picked on for two weeks & had the potential to not stop til the end of summer work.
Indeed, hunting and farming are quite different: killing an animal or a plant in order to eat is not a moral act at all (no sophonts are involved at the victim -- morality only comes into play when persons are involved).
is it moral to eat a dolphin or a chimpanzee? they aren't sophonts.
(if I remember my time with Uplift, a sophont has spaceflight abilities - and only one species on Earth has that distinction)
If they are not persons, then there is no morality attached. Eat them or don't! Me, I would choose not to, because (and apart from the yuck factor attached to all non-beef, non-chicken, non-turkey and non-breaded-n-fried fish) because some animals approach personhood without actually / technically attaining to it. So, better safe than sorry may apply.
makes sense.
I understand a sophont to be "an intelligent being; a being with a base reasoning capacity roughly equivalent to or greater (though perhaps even slightly less) than that of a human being." So: not okay to eat humans, not okay to eat "Elves", not okay to eat "Vulcans", not okay to eat "Daine", probably not okay to eat "Ewoks", probably okay to eat "dolphins" and "dogs".
well, humans aren't kosher anyway. [:D]

As I understand it, you're talking about sapients...while a sophont is a sapient with the ability to enter space.

I would be interested if the Daine (or your other creations) divide intelligence in that or other ways. (you may've already addressed it, and I missed it)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by elemtilas » Sat 20 Jun 2015, 23:59

Keenir wrote:
elemtilas wrote:Did I say that? Did I not rather say something along the lines of "kill the bastard first before he can close?" [o.O]
my bad then. sorry; mea maxima culpa.
No worries!
I was oft bullied in my youth; two times I was able to bring a bullying "spree"* to a complete stop.
1. the bully swung a fist, and I moved my hand to counter it (more than had been done prior), and I ended up with a damaged finger, which I had to wear in a splint; the bully was suspended, and when he came back, I had an excuse to not participate in gym classes - we were doing gymnastics, which I couldn't do, not with a splint on my middle finger (which also came in handy when I was annoyed with someone)

2. there was a dust-up, each of us took a swing at the other (we were wearing heavy work gloves http://www.pksafety.com/mcr-safety-glove-1411a.html ), and neither of us got more than a scrape; we were each sent home for the rest of the day, docked in pay; but after that, we were good friends - I think it may've been the fact that I was willing to stand up for myself, as well as each of us giving an accurate account of the fight and the lead-up to it, rather than taking the opportunity to tar the other.

My point is that neither of them qualifies as non-violent, or as "turning the other cheek"...and thus, some in this thread would regard my actions as evil.
I wouldn't call these actions "evil". They certainly weren't "loving", though, and, sure you(r adult self) could probably have handled the latter situation in a more reasoned, sensible way. (Mind you, a minor scuffle that ends up with two boys being friends is okay in my book -- twas dumb, perhaps, but you sorted it amicably.)

Thanks for the picture -- yeah, those are pretty hefty gloves for scuffling! $58 sounds a bit expensive for a pair of gloves, though! But I know good leather gloves can last years, if relatively gently used.

My work gloves: http://www.shutterstock.com/s/surgical+ ... e=45324409
is it moral to eat a dolphin or a chimpanzee? they aren't sophonts.
Ahzoh linked to an article about certain European countries extending personhood to certain animals. I doubt those animals have any understanding whatsoever that they are persons now (and that they weren't before) and have no concept of rights or anything of the sort. When we find another being that can understand and apply such concepts, then we shall have met beings who are persons and not extremely bright but non-person animals.
well, humans aren't kosher anyway. [:D]
All the more reason! I would guess that other apes are not either and probably not dolphins... I wonder: does kashrut take into account the evolutionary past of an animal or just its present day form? I know there's bits about hooves and ungulation and so forth -- but if a non-kosher animal should have evolved into a species that no longer has key non-kosher traits, is it kosher because of its modern form, or it non-kosher because of its familial relationship?
As I understand it, you're talking about sapients...while a sophont is a sapient with the ability to enter space.
I've never heard this particular stipulation for sophont. I mean, humanity hasn't really changed since 1949...in theory we còuld enter space, though would not for some years. But if space travel is a sure sign of sophontry, then sapients will do as well!
I would be interested if the Daine (or your other creations) divide intelligence in that or other ways. (you may've already addressed it, and I missed it)
Yes, in fact. I do know that they divide canids into "lesser dogs", which are domestic canines that are in every respect like dogs we're familiar with, and also "greater dogs" which are the "person-like canines". These can understand speech and can, at least with limitations, think & act for themselves. Cognitively, they're probably something like twelve or fifteen year old boys -- so pretty dangerous! The former: great hunting and watch dogs. The latter, they are the leaders of packs, warriors' and hunters' and rangers' true companions.

They divide people up a little differently, too. Their very name (singular [tana], pl. [dejn]) means "person". If you have wings, you are Daine and thus a true person. Teyor they consider to be almost beyond personhood; they are in a way somewhat trasncendent and much less understandable than other folks of Gea. Teyor also came first and taught Daine many things, and they loved them for it. Men, Dhargs, Dwarrows, Cressa, Gnomes, Polupodes, assorted others -- they are viewed with varying degrees of (slightly) sub-personhood. Men are not seen as animals, but neither are they seen as true, whole people. Hotai they consider beasts, and worse than beasts. Animals just do their thing as appointed by their maker: Hotai seek ever to destroy, maim and desecrate what is beautiful in the World.

Let me put it this way: Daine (in the East) hunt with bow & arrows, and in the West with atlatl & darts. They never use arrows or darts or any such penetrating weapon against their own kind or even against Men in warfare. They will ride down and shoot Hotai with arrows and think nothing further of it.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Xonen » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 01:37

elemtilas wrote:Ahzoh linked to an article about certain European countries extending personhood to certain animals. I doubt those animals have any understanding whatsoever that they are persons now (and that they weren't before) and have no concept of rights or anything of the sort.
How do you know? Have you tried to engage in a discussion with one?

Also, plenty of humans probably wouldn't understand concepts such as "personhood" or "rights" in the way that modern educated (Western) adults do; should they be considered... less qualified as persons?
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by elemtilas » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 02:54

Xonen wrote:
elemtilas wrote:Ahzoh linked to an article about certain European countries extending personhood to certain animals. I doubt those animals have any understanding whatsoever that they are persons now (and that they weren't before) and have no concept of rights or anything of the sort.
How do you know? Have you tried to engage in a discussion with one?

Also, plenty of humans probably wouldn't understand concepts such as "personhood" or "rights" in the way that modern educated (Western) adults do; should they be considered... less qualified as persons?
I don't know with certainty, and I have not personally. I also very much doubt the German government consulted with any dolphin legal consultants on this matter either! [;)]

We can at least engage those people in discussion and sort out what they understand and how they understand the world -- we can find common ground. We have yet to find any kind of common water between us and dolphins -- we haven't been able to communicate with them and they don't seems to be terribly interested in communicating with us. To me that is a sign that there may not be quite as much going on upstairs as we'd like to think. Or as we might be deluding ourselves into believing...

For now, and in my opinion, they remain at best clever animals approaching but not yet attaining personhood. I remain open to surprise reversal!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2435
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Keenir » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 05:14

Xonen wrote:
elemtilas wrote:Ahzoh linked to an article about certain European countries extending personhood to certain animals. I doubt those animals have any understanding whatsoever that they are persons now (and that they weren't before) and have no concept of rights or anything of the sort.
How do you know? Have you tried to engage in a discussion with one?
there's an old saying by one of the men I once heard was a father of linguistics: "if a lion could speak English, we would not be able to understand him."

but yes, I talk to a pet dog a lot, and it seems to understand when I say "out" or "outside", it will be taken out to go potty. then again, half the things I say to it, result in it running to the door.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2435
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Keenir » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 05:18

elemtilas wrote:Thanks for the picture -- yeah, those are pretty hefty gloves for scuffling! $58 sounds a bit expensive for a pair of gloves, though!
the internet is weird - at the time, and for years afterward, i could buy those gloves at a hardware or gardening store for less than ten bucks.

well, humans aren't kosher anyway. [:D]
All the more reason! I would guess that other apes are not either and probably not dolphins... I wonder: does kashrut take into account the evolutionary past of an animal or just its present day form? I know there's bits about hooves and ungulation and so forth -- but if a non-kosher animal should have evolved into a species that no longer has key non-kosher traits, is it kosher because of its modern form, or it non-kosher because of its familial relationship?
not sure...the only time I've heard this discussed, was about the babarusa(sp), that leaf-eating cousin of the pig.

...and I'm not sure how that was decided, either, sadly. sorry.
Hotai they consider beasts, and worse than beasts. Animals just do their thing as appointed by their maker: Hotai seek ever to destroy, maim and desecrate what is beautiful in the World.
ah, Tolkien's (and his Dwarves') description of orcs.
:)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Ahzoh » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 05:35

elemtilas wrote:
Xonen wrote:
elemtilas wrote:Ahzoh linked to an article about certain European countries extending personhood to certain animals. I doubt those animals have any understanding whatsoever that they are persons now (and that they weren't before) and have no concept of rights or anything of the sort.
How do you know? Have you tried to engage in a discussion with one?

Also, plenty of humans probably wouldn't understand concepts such as "personhood" or "rights" in the way that modern educated (Western) adults do; should they be considered... less qualified as persons?
I don't know with certainty, and I have not personally. I also very much doubt the German government consulted with any dolphin legal consultants on this matter either! [;)]

We can at least engage those people in discussion and sort out what they understand and how they understand the world -- we can find common ground. We have yet to find any kind of common water between us and dolphins -- we haven't been able to communicate with them and they don't seems to be terribly interested in communicating with us. To me that is a sign that there may not be quite as much going on upstairs as we'd like to think. Or as we might be deluding ourselves into believing...

For now, and in my opinion, they remain at best clever animals approaching but not yet attaining personhood. I remain open to surprise reversal!
There are the Great Apes too. I've seen how human-like chimpanzees can be.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Xonen » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 09:22

elemtilas wrote:
Xonen wrote:
elemtilas wrote:Ahzoh linked to an article about certain European countries extending personhood to certain animals. I doubt those animals have any understanding whatsoever that they are persons now (and that they weren't before) and have no concept of rights or anything of the sort.
How do you know? Have you tried to engage in a discussion with one?

Also, plenty of humans probably wouldn't understand concepts such as "personhood" or "rights" in the way that modern educated (Western) adults do; should they be considered... less qualified as persons?
I don't know with certainty, and I have not personally. I also very much doubt the German government consulted with any dolphin legal consultants on this matter either! [;)]
Again, if the ability to train as a "legal consultant" is required for personhood, then historically most of humanity wouldn't have qualified, and large parts of it still don't.
We can at least engage those people in discussion and sort out what they understand and how they understand the world -- we can find common ground.
The Sentinelese would probably disagree... Not to mention shoot you on sight. [¬.¬]
We have yet to find any kind of common water between us and dolphins -- we haven't been able to communicate with them and they don't seems to be terribly interested in communicating with us.
This is quite simply false, unless we're using very different definitions for the word "communication". We can communicate, to various degrees, with all sorts of animals, many of them much dumber than dolphins. They're actually one of the relatively few species that have been known to answer when you ask them a question.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by elemtilas » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 13:21

Xonen wrote:
elemtilas wrote:I also very much doubt the German government consulted with any dolphin legal consultants on this matter either! [;)]
Again, if the ability to train as a "legal consultant" is required for personhood, then historically most of humanity wouldn't have qualified, and large parts of it still don't.
Obviously that is not a requirement for personhood -- I am not a "legal consultant" but feel quite confident in my own personhood. I am sure yóu are not a legal consultant and I am equally confident that you are a person.
We can at least engage those people in discussion and sort out what they understand and how they understand the world -- we can find common ground.
The Sentinelese would probably disagree... Not to mention shoot you on sight. [¬.¬]
Possibly. Shooting other people on sight does not disqualify one from personhood.
We have yet to find any kind of common water between us and dolphins -- we haven't been able to communicate with them and they don't seems to be terribly interested in communicating with us.
This is quite simply false, unless we're using very different definitions for the word "communication". We can communicate, to various degrees, with all sorts of animals, many of them much dumber than dolphins. They're actually one of the relatively few species that have been known to answer when you ask them a question.[/quote]

I can communicate with a computer (via programming language(s)) -- that doesn't make the computer a person. Real communications is a two way road -- exchange of ideas, coming to an Understanding, finding that common ground. If we worked at it, even those tough nutters on Sentinel would prove to nothing more than ordinary human persons.

Also: the computer can answer me a question when I ask. I can type into Google "how to fix a leaky faucet" and it can give me answers. Some of those answers might actually involve plumbing hardware!

Saw the video. Come back when the dolphins can actually talk about why they play! Or how they understand themselves! This video is a good example of a very clever animal that is very close to personhood but hasn't quite attained. A number of problems however: this is a captive dolphin that has been well trained and is also motivated by getting a snack every time the human asks a question. Even rats can make choices when motivated by yumminess! You can also teach a dog to fetch an object and try to trick a dog by asking for an object that is not there. You can also do this, sometimes with humorous results, with a five year old human!

Now, the truth is this: I do not know and can not say for certainty whether this dolphin is a person or not a person. (Thus the "better safe than sorry -- don't eat it" answer earlier!) We might just be too stupid to sort it out.

The best that can be said for now is "keep an open mind and we'll see..."
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by elemtilas » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 13:26

Ahzoh wrote:
elemtilas wrote:For now, and in my opinion, they remain at best clever animals approaching but not yet attaining personhood. I remain open to surprise reversal!
There are the Great Apes too. I've seen how human-like chimpanzees can be.
Stands to reason: they are terribly close relatives after all! Or maybe what you're really seeing is how very chimp-like we can still be? [:D]

Something happened and we became persons -- they have not yet. That may in the end be a good thing. We weren't really very good at recognising or respecting the personhood of other early hominid folks -- they were all killed off!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by elemtilas » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 13:43

Keenir wrote:
Hotai they consider beasts, and worse than beasts. Animals just do their thing as appointed by their maker: Hotai seek ever to destroy, maim and desecrate what is beautiful in the World.
ah, Tolkien's (and his Dwarves') description of orcs.
:)
Pretty much -- but ultimately it is an untrue fabrication, a slander and a calumny born from ancient hatreds and misunderstandings... Ah, poor misunderstood fellow; thou are Orc!

Inter alia, Redbritches says this of Hotai (not even their own name for themselves): It is said that the Hotai have wrought no thing of beauty with their hands; and it would seem that the same may be said of their tongues as well. For it is the case that they have given the world of their fellows no speech of beauty, no poetry, no grand epics, no literature. Nay, they have put their tongues to use only in heaping abuse upon others and degrading all sense of beauty or the wonder of all things within Creation. Hotai have stolen the words of whatever folks they live near to and have perverted that speech and degraded it for their own corrupt purposes, making of it a thing of ugliness and crudity.

He does offer some begrudging praise for their engineering and building capabilities. And a rare glimpse of outright admiration for one of their hallmark weapons: A most curious weapon is the shaqtuur, or necklace dagger, a weapon of last resort that is the hallmark of a Hotai warrior: tis but a thin dagger of bronze, but the nifty trick is in its scabbard. This is made in such a way that it holds the blade securely when suspended hilts downward; yet the knife is not so strongly held in place that it can not be quickly seized and removed at need. Hotai rarely undress, and as is well known, never take baths, yet when some need compels them to remove their clothing, they will never part with their shaqtuur!

That was about the most charitable thing he had to say on the topic!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
Tanni
greek
greek
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 01:05

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Tanni » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 13:47

elemtilas wrote:Thanks for the picture -- yeah, those are pretty hefty gloves for scuffling! $58 sounds a bit expensive for a pair of gloves, though! But I know good leather gloves can last years, if relatively gently used.
I very much like this kind of gloves, too. First, as I saw the ad, I also thought that they're very expensive, but then I realized that that's the price for a dozen pairs of them.
So you're surgeon?
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in totalitarian states, but can be cured in the free world.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by elemtilas » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 14:05

Tanni wrote:
elemtilas wrote:Thanks for the picture -- yeah, those are pretty hefty gloves for scuffling! $58 sounds a bit expensive for a pair of gloves, though! But I know good leather gloves can last years, if relatively gently used.
I very much like this kind of gloves, too. First, as I saw the ad, I also thought that they're very expensive, but then I realized that that's the price for a dozen pairs of them.
That makes more sense! Wholesale!
So you're surgeon?[/quote]

Surgical nurse.

Those pictures were slightly irksome -- obviously an actor. Has no idea how to hold the instruments properly. [O.o] Anyway, those gloves aren't very good in a workplace scuffle -- the leather gloves would work much better! [xD]
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
Tanni
greek
greek
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 01:05

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Tanni » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 14:15

Keenir wrote: I was oft bullied in my youth; two times I was able to bring a bullying "spree"* to a complete stop.
1. the bully swung a fist, and I moved my hand to counter it (more than had been done prior), and I ended up with a damaged finger, which I had to wear in a splint; the bully was suspended, and when he came back, I had an excuse to not participate in gym classes - we were doing gymnastics, which I couldn't do, not with a splint on my middle finger (which also came in handy when I was annoyed with someone)

2. there was a dust-up, each of us took a swing at the other (we were wearing heavy work gloves http://www.pksafety.com/mcr-safety-glove-1411a.html ), and neither of us got more than a scrape; we were each sent home for the rest of the day, docked in pay; but after that, we were good friends - I think it may've been the fact that I was willing to stand up for myself, as well as each of us giving an accurate account of the fight and the lead-up to it, rather than taking the opportunity to tar the other.

My point is that neither of them qualifies as non-violent, or as "turning the other cheek"...and thus, some in this thread would regard my actions as evil.

* = one "spree" was over the course of a school year, the other was more of being picked on for two weeks & had the potential to not stop til the end of summer work.
You just defended yourself, so your actions surely aren't ''evil''. Concerning the second incident, maybe the imbalance of power requirement isn't fulfilled, as you both turned out to be on a somewhat equal level. So I ask myself if that really was a bullying process. But on the other hand, as you said you were bullied often, I would accept the whole as a bullying process. From what you write, I'm not sure how you think about that.

What gives me an uneasy feeling is that many people think that the term bullying is just another name for the ''well known'' ''harsh schoolyard treatment/behaviour'' so that they morally treat it in the same way they treated this behaviour for decades (or maybe centuries) before the term bullying was introduced. This results in moral indignation if a victim of bullying himself uses extreem violence for stopping a bullying process, as this moral people think that the amount of violence is not justified for the supposedly minor picking on the victim.

But bullying is a diabolic process in the literal sense of the word. If someone don't understand what bullying is -- and all who weren't bullied (for a long time) really don't understand --, they will come up with unfair moralic considerations why a victim terminating that process or taking revenge violently is at least moralically guilty. A moralic person simply can't step out of the moralic system he's using.
Indeed, hunting and farming are quite different: killing an animal or a plant in order to eat is not a moral act at all (no sophonts are involved at the victim -- morality only comes into play when persons are involved).
is it moral to eat a dolphin or a chimpanzee? they aren't sophonts.
(if I remember my time with Uplift, a sophont has spaceflight abilities - and only one species on Earth has that distinction)
Searched for ''sophont'' in an online dictionary, but nothing!
If they are not persons, then there is no morality attached. Eat them or don't! Me, I would choose not to, because (and apart from the yuck factor attached to all non-beef, non-chicken, non-turkey and non-breaded-n-fried fish) because some animals approach personhood without actually / technically attaining to it. So, better safe than sorry may apply.
Isn't the notion of ''kosher'' some kind of morality, too? You can easily extent the ''yuck factor'' to at least chicken and turkey, because of the bad situations they are raised in, and how the flesch is treated.
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in totalitarian states, but can be cured in the free world.
Tanni
greek
greek
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 01:05

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Tanni » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 15:15

elemtilas wrote:
I was oft bullied in my youth; two times I was able to bring a bullying "spree"* to a complete stop.
1. the bully swung a fist, and I moved my hand to counter it (more than had been done prior), and I ended up with a damaged finger, which I had to wear in a splint; the bully was suspended, and when he came back, I had an excuse to not participate in gym classes - we were doing gymnastics, which I couldn't do, not with a splint on my middle finger (which also came in handy when I was annoyed with someone)

2. there was a dust-up, each of us took a swing at the other (we were wearing heavy work gloves http://www.pksafety.com/mcr-safety-glove-1411a.html ), and neither of us got more than a scrape; we were each sent home for the rest of the day, docked in pay; but after that, we were good friends - I think it may've been the fact that I was willing to stand up for myself, as well as each of us giving an accurate account of the fight and the lead-up to it, rather than taking the opportunity to tar the other.

My point is that neither of them qualifies as non-violent, or as "turning the other cheek"...and thus, some in this thread would regard my actions as evil.
I wouldn't call these actions "evil". They certainly weren't "loving", though, and, sure you(r adult self) could probably have handled the latter situation in a more reasoned, sensible way. (Mind you, a minor scuffle that ends up with two boys being friends is okay in my book -- twas dumb, perhaps, but you sorted it amicably.)
This is the way people usually think about what is called ''harsh schoolyard behaviour'': two boys scuffle and turn out to become friends afterwards. But this is not bullying. From the position of an observer just seeing the scuffle, you cannot say if it's bullying or not. (This makes it difficult for the teachers to deal with bullying.) For knowing that it's part of a bullying process, you need lots of background knowledge.
is it moral to eat a dolphin or a chimpanzee? they aren't sophonts.
Ahzoh linked to an article about certain European countries extending personhood to certain animals. I doubt those animals have any understanding whatsoever that they are persons now (and that they weren't before) and have no concept of rights or anything of the sort. When we find another being that can understand and apply such concepts, then we shall have met beings who are persons and not extremely bright but non-person animals.
This extension is surely not done because of considerations about personhood, but because people like animals, especially pets, and see them as their friends, or even as family members, regardless if they have understanding or concepts of right or wrong or anything of that sort. Consider a human being highly disabled form birth, do you think he has understanding (for what) or a notion of right or wrong, if he's too disabled to listen to a preacher or understand religious instructions?

For me, I have no problem in extenting what you call personhood to lots of animals, fantasy beings, non-earth aliens or even some kind of computer, but not to the computers we have nowadays. It's not really a question of understanding, but of the time you spend and the love you feel for them or the experiences you've made with them. In this sense, also a spider can be a person. (For me, every spider IS a person.) See the cave experience the protagonist has in one of Paolini's Eragon books (it's the second one, I think). Every spark is a person!
I wonder: does kashrut take into account the evolutionary past of an animal or just its present day form? I know there's bits about hooves and ungulation and so forth -- but if a non-kosher animal should have evolved into a species that no longer has key non-kosher traits, is it kosher because of its modern form, or it non-kosher because of its familial relationship?
Well, if the bible says that god created the world 5000 something years before, then there's no evolution!
They divide people up a little differently, too. Their very name (singular [tana], pl. [dejn]) means "person". If you have wings, you are Daine and thus a true person. Teyor they consider to be almost beyond personhood; they are in a way somewhat trasncendent and much less understandable than other folks of Gea. Teyor also came first and taught Daine many things, and they loved them for it. Men, Dhargs, Dwarrows, Cressa, Gnomes, Polupodes, assorted others -- they are viewed with varying degrees of (slightly) sub-personhood. Men are not seen as animals, but neither are they seen as true, whole people. Hotai they consider beasts, and worse than beasts.
This reminds me on some nazi-time considerations about the aryan (or non-aryan) status of a person.
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in totalitarian states, but can be cured in the free world.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Ahzoh » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 16:41

This extension is surely not done because of considerations about personhood, but because people like animals, especially pets, and see them as their friends, or even as family members, regardless if they have understanding or concepts of right or wrong or anything of that sort. Consider a human being highly disabled form birth, do you think he has understanding (for what) or a notion of right or wrong, if he's too disabled to listen to a preacher or understand religious instructions?
Actually, it is done in consideration of their personhood. But, then, how could you know, likely not having done research on this?
Also, you can't consider spiders or insects a person. They have no level of intelligence to the higher-order animals, like apes and dolphins. Even pigs are more eligible for personhood.
Last edited by Ahzoh on Sun 21 Jun 2015, 17:12, edited 1 time in total.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2435
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Keenir » Sun 21 Jun 2015, 16:50

Tanni wrote:
Keenir wrote:* = one "spree" was over the course of a school year, the other was more of being picked on for two weeks & had the potential to not stop til the end of summer work.
You just defended yourself, so your actions surely aren't ''evil''. Concerning the second incident, maybe the imbalance of power requirement isn't fulfilled, as you both turned out to be on a somewhat equal level.
knocking me out of line, laughing at me; all there needs, for it to start, is the perception of an imbalance of power, as you put it - though some people start it even without that. (with no imbalance, its easier to rationalize it as proving oneself)
So I ask myself if that really was a bullying process. But on the other hand, as you said you were bullied often, I would accept the whole as a bullying process. From what you write, I'm not sure how you think about that.
fine, don't call it bullying. call it hunting - the same kid who jammed my finger so I couldn't use it for over a month, also had no hesitation to beat me up, take my things, and verbally mock & tease me...I got quite good at running at high speeds through crowds of students, dodging and turning swiftly to avoid collisions.
If they are not persons, then there is no morality attached. Eat them or don't! Me, I would choose not to, because (and apart from the yuck factor attached to all non-beef, non-chicken, non-turkey and non-breaded-n-fried fish) because some animals approach personhood without actually / technically attaining to it. So, better safe than sorry may apply.
Isn't the notion of ''kosher'' some kind of morality, too? You can easily extent the ''yuck factor'' to at least chicken and turkey, because of the bad situations they are raised in, and how the flesch is treated.
kosher is dietary.

if memory serves, the Passagians wanted the kosher laws, and everything else standard Christian (which for them, in central-southern Italy at the time, would probably be Catholic)
Tanni wrote:For me, I have no problem in extenting what you call personhood to lots of animals, fantasy beings, non-earth aliens or even some kind of computer, but not to the computers we have nowadays. It's not really a question of understanding, but of the time you spend and the love you feel for them or the experiences you've made with them. In this sense, also a spider can be a person.
you can make memories and spend time with spiders, but you can't spend time with computers? remind me, how are we holding this discussion? [:)]
I wonder: does kashrut take into account the evolutionary past of an animal or just its present day form? I know there's bits about hooves and ungulation and so forth -- but if a non-kosher animal should have evolved into a species that no longer has key non-kosher traits, is it kosher because of its modern form, or it non-kosher because of its familial relationship?
Well, if the bible says that god created the world 5000 something years before, then there's no evolution![/quote]

I'm talking about dietary restrictions, full stop, nothing more.
(suppose i should be glad i didn't mention the Hindu equivilent of kosher - you might've then insisted that all the divisions in society reflect which part of a chopped-up god we hail from...or which sleeping partner of a vacationing god, for the Norse)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by Xonen » Mon 22 Jun 2015, 00:00

elemtilas wrote:
We have yet to find any kind of common water between us and dolphins -- we haven't been able to communicate with them and they don't seems to be terribly interested in communicating with us.
This is quite simply false, unless we're using very different definitions for the word "communication". We can communicate, to various degrees, with all sorts of animals, many of them much dumber than dolphins. They're actually one of the relatively few species that have been known to answer when you ask them a question.
I can communicate with a computer (via programming language(s)) -- that doesn't make the computer a person.

The difference between computers and dolphins is that we know the former are (for now, at least) just mindless hunks of silicon that push electrons around the way we design them to. By contrast, we don't know exactly what goes on in the brain of a dolphin. Certainly they aren't deliberately constructed to react in certain predictable ways to human commands.
Also: the computer can answer me a question when I ask. I can type into Google "how to fix a leaky faucet" and it can give me answers.
Um. I'll admit I don't know much about how it actually works, but I'm almost certain Google, for now, actually just links you to answers that have been written by people. [;)] There are certainly actual AI's that can attempt to answer questions as well, but (perhaps fortunately) they appear not to have become self-aware just yet.
Some of those answers might actually involve plumbing hardware!
Most of it, probably. Unless you mean that literally and not as a euphemism.
Saw the video. Come back when the dolphins can actually talk about why they play! Or how they understand themselves! This video is a good example of a very clever animal that is very close to personhood but hasn't quite attained. A number of problems however: this is a captive dolphin that has been well trained and is also motivated by getting a snack every time the human asks a question. Even rats can make choices when motivated by yumminess!
Even plants and bacteria make "choices" based on yumminess (although I think the scientists might phrase that a little differently) - and OTOH, the motivations of humans often aren't ultimately that much more complicated. But we were talking about communication, not the ability to make choices.

But yes, rats do communicate with each other, and they can learn to communicate, to a limited degree, with humans who handle them. But my point is that the ability to communicate is not, IMO, a good criterion for personhood.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Why do soldiers risk their lives in wars?

Post by elemtilas » Mon 22 Jun 2015, 00:38

Xonen wrote:But yes, rats do communicate with each other, and they can learn to communicate, to a limited degree, with humans who handle them. But my point is that the ability to communicate is not, IMO, a good criterion for personhood.
However, it ìs how we discuss things like personhood with each other. To my knowledge, dolphins have not as of yet spoken up regarding their status -- they haven't communicated anything about their accommodations, their work schedules, treat rotations, vacation time, just compensation, aquarium decor. In other words, they haven't yet done anything that really screams "I am a person here!"

Until some kind of breakthrough can be made -- until they do something to really get through to us! -- I just don't see any strong evidence of personhood. So, like I said before, I await the chance to change my mind!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
Post Reply