People= Large amounts of hypocrisy, self mutilation, and trickery.
Animals= Motivated by necessity and a level of natural honesty when it comes to survival.
I personally love studying and watching other animals. I personally despise most people.
I would most likely sympathize with a mountain lion caught in a hunter’s trap more so than a person dying next to me on a train.
I personally look at post-modern man as a cancer killing all other life forms for his own delusional absurdity.
Behold man, homo rapiens a cancerous sickness that must play itself out! 
I figured most people here would have the basic enough education to know where to look for the evidence themselves. Do I need to explain the evidence for humans having human-empathy modules (towards in-groups) which make them abhor human suffering more then animal suffering? No I don’t, its obvious and the evidence is massive, do a google search or even better try looking at real life.
I can say it again, that if you find it easier to watch human suffering compared to animal suffering, you are missing a part of your humanity.
Anyone who could seriously deal with millions and millions and millions of humans being consistantly bred for food in giant-slaughterhouses right in their back yard, and forced into cages to small for them (or all the other crazy shit that animals go through) would be lacking some essential part of their humanity. Comparing things like genocide to this is also absurd so don’t.
Human faces set of human detection modules for one, the evidence for this is abundant, which is why its harder to stab someone to death then to blow up a tank from far away. Ps ychologically more damaging anyway. statistically. Theres a reason why a masked hostage has a statistically higher death rate (much higher) then a none hooded hostage.
Infact statistically the more of a face that an animal has, typically the more humans have a problem seeing them harmed/injured… so, yeah theres a huge case to be made that people have human-emapthy modules, human detection modules. Its not even a point worth arguing, no one in their right mind has a easier time watching humans suffering (innocent humans).
Do you find it easier to watch innocent children suffer then animals Faust? Would you have ane asier time watching your own family? No, and if you did, you would have diagnosable mental problems.
Well how’s this for irony.
The only one making insulting attacks is defending humanity from our entire onslought. Entertaining.
Don’t mind me, cyrene. I’m not assuming you laid down some brutal ridicule. Just here for the irony.
I don’t think thats ironic, I think its quite humane to engage in a backlash against someone claiming that humans have an easier time watching humans suffer then animals, let alone questioning me for saying someone would have mental problems if that were the case. Faust is annoying and continously tries to bait me on issues that are obvious fact.
People, in theory you aren’t monkeys, so stop slinging shit. No more insults.
Again, Cyrene, I have not made any claims about the issue at hand.
Statistically. Hmmm. So, the more like other people we are, the more sane we are. And the more humane. Of course, you know about those famous Yale death camp studies. Where people applied a “lethal” shock to other people. Statistical humaneness. Staistical humanity.
At least you’re finally trying.
The stats don’t bear you out, however.
I’ll tell you why, but it’s not moral.
It’s not because of people’s values, thoughts, personality, or moral class/character.
Human behavior and belief-systems, human values, these come from neuro-chemistry and the gene.
Adjust the chemistry and stimulate in this or that way, and then the matter gets patternized, the natural drug flows, one loves others and does not want a person to have pain. But, the opposite can also be done through such process. I would suppose that, in general, humans annoy people more than dogs or cats do, and that humans would cause you more torture than a dog or a cat ever did. After that kind of experience, you’d feel a bit less… ideal about people?
Dan~ thats not moral thats ethics… And a very true side of the thoughts too. We are taught especially now adays to not trust strangers. And rightfully so. We possibly transfer that mistrust to this situation. A dog will maul you for valid natural reasons but, a human will rape and torture you for no other reason than entertainment. An animal harms to defend or for food, they do not do it for perverted fun. Seems to me an animals are clearly more ethical on the nature side of things.
No, you are questioning my statements when the evidence for them is obvious.
In a lot of cases no, in a lot of cases yes. I am not talking about personality quirks or anything of that nature, I am talking about evolved universal human architecture for instance: Morality towards family and in-groups.
The statistics do bear me out, worldwide, across all cultures, almost ALL PEOPLE would rather watch animals suffer then their own collective INGROUPS, this is cross-cultural and universal, humans do all sorts of horrendous things to other humans, but in a lot of ways they can only do so by dehumanization, demonization, putting animal qualities on humans as to allow themselves the cognitive flip that makes killing psychologically easier.
Humans can kill other humans without remorse, but many of the situations we do so require animalization of other humans, another way humans find it easier to slaughter other humans is in situations where they feel like they are being hunted, and alone, people no longer view other humans as human, they view them as a dangerous animal and you get two options like meeting a bear in the woods, fight or flight.
MANY MANY of the reasons that humans don’t always suffer psychological damage from murder requires PUTTING ANIMAL QUALITIES ON PEOPLE, because people have AN EASIER TIME CROSS CULTURALLY SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS, it doesn’t raise the type of in-born horror that killing does, and yes, even these genocidal maniacs report the psych ological damage of cutting someone up, they talk about how the person’s eyes haunt them decades after the killing, how the person’s eyes were worse then the death rattle and the person gurgling up blood.
You kill a human with a knife and look into their eyes when they die, do it to any other animal you want and if the psychological damage is more extreme for the animal, YOU ARE NOT SANE. (outside special circumstances)
Sorry but if the most battle-hardened and psychological insane genocidal monsters speak as if their lives have been ruined by what they have done, that they essentially can’t live with themselves due to the psychological torture of it. The amount of soldiers leaving war due to psychological damage somtimes exceeeds reccruitment into duty.
after ww2 new training standards had to be put together because they realizedd even in the middle of a horrible warzone, people were REFUSING to fire on other humans, people were actively pretending to fire in the middle of a war, pretending to load their guns, and in other situations not 1 in 20 soldiers were firing their weapons despite commanders screaming at them to fire or die on the spot.
The act of training humans to kill requires dealing with a natural abhorance of it. These evolutionary cognitive qualities that allow us to butcher people without remorse is intuitively grasped by propaganda promoters and etc. (though the same thing that allows us to abhor war, allows us to engage in it with striking brutality).
Yeah, well, animals do things to people besides what they should naturally do. Black bears will eat people (somtimes, rare) they will defend cubs or defensive attack you. Somtimes black bears will also make predatory attacks on people, who they do not eat, when there are no cubs around, leaving its territory to do so.
One black bear followed an experience woodsman (someone who would typically notice a bear) it waited for him to make camp and sit down, walked up behind him, and crushed the back of his skull with one bite, it left him there, it didn’t even play with the corpse. It stalked and hunted someone for apparently ‘no reason’ it stalked and killedd someone in a way that is extremely rare for the normally timid blackbear.
blackbears engage in odd predatory hunting of humans somtimes, other animals do the same.
Animals can go insane just like humans can, animals can be born cognitively ‘off’ just like humans.
and again, whether its a human knifing you for y our wallet to buy food for his family, or a bear eating you, I don’t think humans are going to morally side with the bear because it doesn’t know any better, we might like to say that know, but when faced with a bear and a human, all we try to do is kill or run.
Cyrene, I am questioning why you would call all those who disagree with you “stupid”, and why you would do so without argumentation. You have begun some rudimentary argument, so there is now a new issue - your argument.
But you are arguing from the general to the specific. You are making more than one unrelated general claim at once, so I guess I’ll just pick one.
Or maybe I won’t - it’s a lot of work sorting out your claims, and I’m not sure it’s worth it.
So, sometimes being like other people shows sanity and sometimes it doesn’t. You don’t give much in the way of criteria to make the distinction, but you have clearly backed away from an earlier claim. So I’ll try to find a new claim. Please forgive me if I’m too stupid to keep up with your everchanging claims.
So, there is an evolved and universal moral architecture at play. A biologically determined moral standard - one which doesn’t preclude name-calling of those who disagree, I guess. And this biologically determined and universal, one would have to say “absolute”, moral code states that we must value the suffering of humans differently than the suffering of animals. So, is it wrong to cause suffereing in other humans but right to cause suffering in animals? Or is it just more wrong and less wrong?
What claim did I change?
You’re so absurd it defies explanation, I never changed ANY claim. No one is saying ‘absolute’ thats you sticking together a straw-man arguement that you never understood to begin with. No one is saying animal suffering is right, only that if you have an issue with animal suffering above in-group human suffering, you are not cognitively fit, you are missing a piece of humanity that is endowed to every other normal human.
Put aside your obvious and BS moral philosophy questions and take the issue at face value. Theres plenty of criteria to make that judgement call, I know it, you know it, everyone fucking knows it. We can give criteria for why human suffering should/is more important BESIDES the fact that all humans come equipped with in-group moral sentiments.
My statement is as stands, if you find human suffering (in-groups) easier to deal with then animal suffering, there is somthing wrong with you mentally. I already made the clarification early on that there were exceptions.
Oh, okay, Cyrene, so now you’re saying that it isn’t a moral issue at all, is that correct? It’s just a matter of how well you “handle” it? That neither is bad nor good, but it’s about how well you deal with it? That some events should be, for a psychologically sound person, easier to accept than others? And that animal suffering is one of those events. Is that your claim? It’s just a matter of how much stomach we should have for these two kinds of events, without a moral component?
Because “innocent”, as in “innocent children” and “remorse” seemed to me a moral term. But you’re saying that I mistook you. Remember, I might be one of those stupid ones, which would explain why I am having trouble with this.
Is it psycologically healthy to prefer buying the processed meat of an animal to slaughtering that animal yourself? Is buying meat at the supermarket more sane than hunting?
Is it more sane to be a cab driver than to be an emergency room doctor? Doctors see a lot of suffering. Is it more sane to be a veterinarian than a doctor? How about army medics? Are they nuts? All of them? Or disaster relief workers? is it saner just to send money than to go to the scene of the suffering?
maybe you could provide a sliding scale for me.
What is wrong with you exactly? How isn’t it a moral issue how a person psychologically reacts to human suffering? How isn’t degree/ability for empathy not connected to morality.
No, I never made that claim.
in comparison with ingroup human suffering, yes.
Where exactly are you getting any of this? I never said it wasn’t a moral issue. I said it could also be judged on other criteria.
You are absurd beyond reason.
The cab driver/doctor reference is so assinine I can’t believe you actually said it. We are talking about a massive violation of human universal architecture. Your comparison doesn’t hold any weight what-so-ever.
If you’re denying that humans feel more compassion towards other humans, consistantly (ingroups) then towards animals, you are being absurd beyond reason, that is the only claim that i’ve made.
If you find it easier to watch ingroup human suffering then animal suffering you are not mentally sound (not completely). Are you denying that it would be mentally unsound for humans to have more compassion for animal suffering then human suffering? Think about that in practice for a second.
I’m just trying to follow you the best I can, Cyrene. So it is a moral issue. Okay. You seem to be also saying that there is a lack of cognitive development, or a mental imbalance in play. Are mentally imbalanced people to be held to the same moral standards as healthy people? I can’t tell.
So ingroup humans are somehow searated from outgroup humans? I don’t think this was a part of the premise of the OP, or the first responders to the OP, who you criticised so roundly. So, are you arguning with them, or with yourself?
But maybe you could make the separation for me. It’s morally wrong, and wrong on other grounds as well? Could you start with the moral argument? Just take that one first? make it simple, for us stupid people?
Thank you in advance.
Oh, and it would help if you stuck with the original premise, which didn’t differentiate between groups of people.
Thanks again.
oh - the reason I claimed that you were making this an “absolute” thing is that you claimed there was a “universal human architecture”. That seems like an absolute to me. Could you explain how it’s universal but not absolute?
Again, I thank you.
You’ve been very patient.
Its a moral issue whether people value human/animal suffering the same.
Some kind of emotional cognitive impairment, and only in-so-far that we do on a regular basis, this person would be lacking a part of their moral hardware. Whether these people should be held to the same standards is questionable, whether its a moral issue overall isn’t. Whether a murderer can help murderering, as a society, we have to condemn it on some level and etiher rehabilitate the person, if possible, and if not ‘quarentine’ them. I’m not suggesting the same for people who think animal suffering is more relevant then human suffering, but surely its a moral issue simply because they may have an impairment. Treatment issues makes it an issue of morality, most medicine has to have that attached to it somewhere.,
Its an obvious fact that I never felt that I had to elucidate out loud, subsequent posts made me think otherwise. Humans routinely treat other humans worse then animals, humans divide other humans into ingroups and outgroups, naturally our ingroups would be family, friends, tribes, a small hunting/gatherering community, in this day and age your ingroup can include anywhere from all of humanity to almost none of it. Think of a sliding moral knob, the natural off-set to having ingroup loyalty is friction with outgroups.
ingroups/outgroups exist universally, I never felt the need to explain it at first, but I felt that if i didn’t people would point out war/genocide/torture.
But maybe you could make the separation for me. It’s morally wrong, and wrong on other grounds as well? Could you start with the moral argument? Just take that one first? make it simple, for us stupid people?
Thank you in advance.
Oh, and it would help if you stuck with the original premise, which didn’t differentiate between groups of people.
Thanks again.
oh - the reason I claimed that you were making this an “absolute” thing is that you claimed there was a “universal human architecture”. That seems like an absolute to me. Could you explain how it’s universal but not absolute?
Again, I thank you.
You’ve been very patient.
[/quote]