Jump to content
Aveyond Studios Community
Sign in to follow this  
Cryzkia

What animals are worth. Debate.

Recommended Posts

KTC, do I have to describe this anymore? maybe not ants, maybe just....argh, i don't know. you're backing me into a corner here, KTC. if you want answers from me, please stop attacking me with non-stop questions. i believe animals have souls. what can be classified as animals is up to you, how about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pinkjaguar12

 

KTC wasn't attacking you. She is debating with you. If you don't like debates, then don't join one.

 

You made a statement, and she countered it. That is how debates work.

 

You believe animals have souls, but since this is about animal's worth, there are going to be those like KTC -and me- who believe animals don't have one. Again, if you didn't wish to discuss this, you shouldn't have joined this thread. Because this is a debate thread. No one is attacking you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lovinlife: bad comparison. cows having spots is a genetic, possibly affected by environment like siamese cats, trait that can be analyzed with equipment. Study cows enough and you'll learn why they favor a certain color over another.

 

Souls on the other hand lack 'hard proof' because souls is unfortunately completely subjective and a human construction. Ask what H2O is and they'll reply its water. This never changes. Ask what a soul is, and every human has a different definition of what it is or does it even exist.

 

@theone: How so? Death can simply mean moving what you would call a 'soul' into another organism so you won't learn anything anyway as the process is too fast. Besides, what's the fun with just being content with the world as is and never questioning it? If humans did that, we wouldn't have religion (which might be a plus imo), science (I don't like this one though), or be at the point we were (*shrugs on this point*).

 

your last post: that doesn't make sense. Science wouldn't exist if there is no evidence. Science is basically you trying to convince other skeptics that your viewpoint is right. This requires evidence/proof.

 

@klaus: off topic rant - living is a funny word imo since none of us have a good definition of it, even scientists. I think it was sargon who brought up a good point in another thread that defining what makes something 'alive' is....difficult, especially if you factor in AI. Right now, we can differentiate between organics and synthetics because the synthetics we create aren't that bright frankly. They do exactly what they were programed to do. But what if we get to the level of true AI that can think for themselves and make decisions like a human? That's a scary thought. But enough of my off tangent-ness.

 

To souls: my thought process is like this - unless you can give me hard proof that something exist or not, I assume it doesn't. So far, no one has proven souls exist so I usually just put it in the same place as ghosts, the boogieman, and other fantasies. *shrugs*

 

@pink: I am simply asking you to clarify your opinion. I will ask questions to make a person's opinion either stronger (ie they got a solid answer, might not be one I agree with but its solid to them) or to doubt it (aka ask more questions until you got no more doubts).

 

For the last post: You said the smallest you're going is ants. My main question is basically - why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pink: so how come its only animals that have souls?

 

If we go by the scientific 'tree of life': animals are part of the eukarya domain which also includes plants, fungi, and protista. The other two domains are bacteria and archaea. So how come the entire domains of bacteria and archaea (which have way more organisms in them than all of eukarya combined) and the kingdoms of plants, fungi, and protista do not have souls?

 

Also, I'm asking you to clarify your opinion. What's the point of applying my definition of animals to your opinion when it doesn't match yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@klaus: why? all of my scientific 'garbage' (and I find it insulting that you call science garbage when its generally more believable than any other so call 'sources of info') are valid and appropriate. If you don't like science: don't debate with me. Simple as that. I can and will use science when its warranted.

 

Also, I didn't have anything really science-y thrown at you in my last post so I don't know what you mean. AI is artificial intelligence, which is only a part of the off topic portion of my post.

 

My eukarya/archaea/bacteria post was directed at pink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@klaus: it is not trash, its science/biology stuff. Perhaps people taking it would know what it is. The rest do not have to call it ‘crap’ just cuz they have no idea what it is to begin with.

 

 

@ktc: :/ <- this emoticon was at the end of my sentence where I made the comparisons.

Imo, we’re the only creatures that have souls. Want proof? I’m psychic :P

 

I guess people just believe in Animism, like some do in after life etc. you can’t really ‘prove’ a ‘soul’ actually exists. People just believe.

 

I’ve killed a millions of ants now and then, not really sure if its ‘soul’s’ gonna come and take its sweet revenge on me for squashing it.

 

eukarya/archaea/bacteria: I’m guessing (again) it’s only the ‘large’ animals, that happen to be multi cellular, with the ‘souls’. Not the minute microscopic unicellular organisms cuz they’re too small to fit a soul inside of ‘em :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lovinlife: what does being a psychic gotta do with anything? Psychics read thoughts, not your soul :P

 

believing for the sake of believing just leaves a bad taste and is dangerous imo. It means your not thinking for yourself which I, as a overworked thinker, think is very bad news lol.

 

soul getting revenge: that sounds more like a ghoul/ghost/poltergeist than a soul.

 

souls: though why would a soul have a size limit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychic: I’m a highly qualified exceptional one with extra abilities ;P

 

Overworked thinker, here’s some good news, animism causes no harm to its believers.

 

Soul: and that’s how I define it :D

 

Size limit: it doesn’t. people were arguing that no prokaryotes have souls but eukaryotes do, and couldn’t prove it, so I decided, souls prefer larger bodies than puny ones to stay in, you know, cuz more legroom is comfortable than being cramped in a small space.

 

Side note: my soul’s sleepy, and so I shall put my soul to sleep, its way past midnight xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,but I do not trust science.Take it as it is.I will still remain at my idea that animals are worth more than we give them,or behave to them.And really,any science stuff you try to throw at me will only bore me to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@klaus: than don't debate with me cuz animals+worth debate = excellent debate to use science in :P None of your emotion-targeting arguments or whatnot jives with me either hehe.

 

@lovinlife: psychic: o rly? lol

 

animism: I don't know, ppl do crazy things for their beliefs all the time.

 

soul:

 

size limit: sort of like first class vs coach on airplanes? haha though it sounds like you're saying even the prokaryotes got souls. The souls just don't like their lot in life XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be off topic,

but as long as the animals are already dead, I don't mind people makinf fur coats.

But if they killed an animal just because they wanted the fur, then that is just plain flat out cruelty.

I could see if the animal was suffering and couldn't be saved, but must you really kill an innocent, healthy creature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@theone: It was whether animals have souls or not, prokaryotes in particular. Some said animals don’t have souls/feelings etc. Some said they do. And I said only humans have souls, not the rest of the animals (also provided an utterly ridiculous proof ;P)

 

So we’re still on topic, we’re still debating on how much animals are worth. In this case, it’s whether they do have some kind of fundamental nature in them or whether they’re just plain vertebrates and have to be treated like one.

 

Though since we can’t really prove we have an ‘inner self’, there’s no serious debate here :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@theone: I just go with whatever is the current debate about lol. Souls can be part of an animal worth: so far most people here on the 'souls exist' side said only animals get it, ignoring all unicellular organisms, plants, fungi, and protista. So it sounds like we have this whole 'animals has a soul so its worth more than this organism' type of deal again.

 

Also: you can't prove that animals are worth more than humans and vice versa so that doesn't make it very objective either. :P

I provided an opinion on animal worth that is as objective as you can get- It compares an animal's ability to another animal in relative terms and the one that has a better one is 'worth' more in that ability than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know,here's a question!For everybody!What would you prefer to be?One of the animals from the jungle,a cockroach which can resist nuclear blasts?A plant which saves lives?Let's be realistic,people!Humans can do something without the help of the things around them.If you take all around a person,leave it isolated,will it be able to do something?The cockroach can multiply,plant can spread it's seeds,animal can use it's survival instinct,but human?!Human has almost no traits from the natures like the ones listed above.Do you think that animals aren't worth anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Klaus

 

Humans can survive in the wild without modern technologies. It just nearly all humans choose not too. You forget when humans were first evolving they didn't have sophisticated tools. There were also a lot more animals that were way more dangerous then the ones today that the humans had to face. Humans did survive, which just shows that humans can survive without modern technologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Klaus

 

Yes, without tools. Also you're wrong. Some animals do use tools. Just look at chimps. Chimps do use simple tools to help them with their food consumption.

 

People can survive without tools. People just choose not to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mopiece,you just contradicted yourself in the last phrase.People use tools daily.And I am referring to the survival here.If humans would not have discovered the told long ago,do you think we have still been here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...