/sci/ - Science & Math

Hey /v/

Sage like this makes me not bump the thread.

Ya those fuckers deserve to die.

>>1285104


Anyone who says otherwise is a psychopath

If I were to pass by them and see this I would probably throw them both off.

>>1285089
>Shit like this makes me support eugenics.
I don't think eugenics alone could produce a fall resistant breed of dog.

meh humans still kill other humans all the time with support of the governments. how is this worse than that?

>>1285167


Because war is a necessary part of human evolution. Throwing dogs over bridges isn't.

fucking hitler. He made eugenics unpalapable to the world.

bastard

>>1285150

HAHAHAHAH

fucking lol

>>1285174
Are you a vegetarian? No? How do you feel about all the cows which are killed, decided to be unfit to eat, and ground up to feed pigs?

>>1285174

meh. seems pretty arbitrary bro.

>>1285167
Nobody said that was good, it's just something that people have gotten used to despite how bad it is when you really think about it. I guess it was Jefferson who said "Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."

I bet they are slavs.

falls for less than two seconds, i wouldn't be surprised if the dog survived if it was healthy to start off with. also seems relatively easy to identify those guys, i would assume they were caught?

any backstory etc on this?

>>1285215
It survived initially but then it succumbed to its injuries.

>>1285188
Oh stop it. Whether one eats meat or not isn't going to make a bit of difference to the food industry. You can't do a damn thing about cows dying in the thousands. You can, however, choose not a throw a dog off a bridge for the lulz.

>>1285224
>implying the food industry doesn't sell what consumers buy

>>1285215


it died the next day from internal injuries.

>>1285126

ahh, the most retard argument of all

that throwing these dudes off of a bridge would be any better than throwing the dog off in the first place

there is a difference between killing an animal to eat it. Versus killing one for no reason at all like these fuckers did.

>>1285188

cows aren't domesticated, you dumb fuck.

>>1285252
Uh... yes they are, dude.

>>1285255

Well, they are bred for food.

>>1285237
A murderer is more likely to murder again. Would you kill Hitler? Kill one to save more than one?

>>1285232
>implying they don't throw away millions of animals worth of meat that never end up anywhere near consumers
you probably like to bitch about people who don't vote too

>>1285188
But cows and pigs are delicious.

>>1285274
So you are telling me the food industry would keep breeding and killing cattle even if everyone on Earth was a vegan? Get your head on straight.

Imagine how fun it would be to run them over, or shoot them out the window. Plus it looks like there would be no witnesses around. All the shells would stay in the car. SWEET.

>>1285188

Did they throw the cow over a bridge?

>>1285287
>>1285274
What does any of your stupid argument have to do with two idiots murdering a dog for pleasure?

>>1285315
some other idiot started it with a vacuous "you can't complain about it if you eat meat" comment

>>1285313
If he continues to eat cows, the industry (or at least someone) will continue to supply them, regardless of everyone else. Therefore, his eating cows is sufficient - but not necessary - for the cow killing to continue. Therefore, cows not being killed for food requires him to stop eating cows.

At least these two people are killing a dog and not a human. It's just a dog, people. Don't get angry over it.

>>1285338
It's dog killers like you that should be thrown off a bridge.

>>1285338
a human might deserve it, the dog doesn't. Plus this indicates future violent criminals.

>>1285349

>>1285349
We don't punish people for being more likely to commit a crime. Not as a society. If we did, you'd have been lynched for being more likely to be a pedophile; after all, you're on 4chan.

>>1285338
people that do this shit often end up as rotten people later in life.

having no respect for life at all is pretty disgusting. These people have thrown away their humanity.

>>1285195
I bet you are an Estonian self-hating slav fantasizing of being "aryan".

>>1285359
If they killed an innocent person, that would be a lot worse but the dog is GUARANTEED to be innocent.

>>1285368
No, you've just been taught to think of dogs as being worthy of life. Trust me, it's not an instinctual thing. Just because someone was raised differently doesn't make them a bad person.

>>1285377
Why? What if it mauled a kid? Would it be innocent then?

If so, I assume it's because it's not sentient - not capable of higher thought. But then why is killing it bad?

>>1285325
How does supplying the cattle industry have anything to do with people actually buying cow meat?

>>1285378
so by that logic its ok to go around killing just about anything just for the hell of it so long as they are not people?

Are dogs more innocent than the miscroscopic bacteria, protozoa, and worms that you and other people possibly kill everyday?

>>1285389
I suppose because I was raised that way, there's no logical reason killing anything is bad....

seems like Tails can't fly after all LOL

>>1285232
If a million people suddenly decided to stop eating meat, the industry would notice. But individuals going on a righteous crusade against the murder of animals doesn't do shit.

Also your vote doesn't matter.

>>1285400
Some things have value. My pet cat is valuable to me. Cows are valuable to farmers. Other things are part of a delicate ecosystem or biodiversity.

But stuff like stray dogs or rats or pigeons? Yes. Why not?

>>1285425
>murder of animals


well shit it seems mother nature has us beat in this area then. . .

>>1285378

Wtf no. Our intelligence gives us empathy. Someone who can willingly throw an innocent animal over a bridge for no other purpose that it's funny is fucked in the head.

>>1285433

>Implying humans are above animals

The difference is that you can sympathize with a dog. You can have a personal relationship with one, you can love one. Possibly even be loved back.

In short, big sad puppy eyes, and yet you still throw him off a bridge? Fuck you. Forget any philosophical arguments about any form of life being more worthwhile than another, in the end what kind of sick douchebag kills a dog just for amusement? Which is what's going on in that gif, dudes smiling and the girl is filming.

>>1285425
>Also your vote doesn't matter.
Wrong!

The logic here is a little magical, but here we go.

If you come to the conclusion that you shouldn't vote, it's likely others who think like you will come to the same conclusion. If you come to the conclusion that you should vote, it's likely others who think like you will come to the same conclusion. Therefore, you should come to the conclusion that you should vote.

>>1285425
>But individuals going on a righteous crusade against the murder of animals doesn't do shit.
Yes it does. The expected effect is merely very, very small. Small and nonexistent are extremely different. Everyone doing it is merely the sum of lots of individuals doing it.

Just because your brain doesn't handle small numbers well doesn't mean they aren't numbers.

>>1285425
>boo hoo, I'm so pathetic, there are too many people in the world so I'll just shit on it all
I hate people like you who sit around all day doing nothing because you as an individual can't move a mountain. The fact that you are being a self centered ass hole means there are a million other people like you doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason. If you. If you decide to give blood every 6 months, volunteer, vote, and stop eating meat then a million other people just like you will do that using the same logic you do.

>>1285425

Wrong you faggot. Theres a reason why theres a ton of laws preventing animal cruelty. Animal activists have made a difference.

>>1285437
Your inability to recognize which of your beliefs are products of your culture is depressing. Our intelligence doesn't give us empathy; our biology does - for other humans. You've been raised to emphasize with dogs; that's your prerogative. Don't get pissy because other people don't.

Example - hunting for sport is and was common in nearly every recorded reasonably wealthy culture ever.

>>1285470
>>1285463
>>1285456
No, you as an individual do not make a difference. A hundred individuals might matter, but if could just as well be 99 and still have the same effect.

>>1285485

God you're an idiot. It has nothing to do with the animal, it's the act. The animal dies pretty fast in hunting and theres a purpose besides "hurr it's funny to see the animal get hurt".

>>1285498

I don't understand you point?

They have made a difference....

>>1285498
Imagine a world where everyone through history shared your attitude and realize you are a pussy.

>>1285498
If 100 people would make a difference, your actions have an expected result of 1/100th of that difference. This is not the same thing as expecting no result. MATH MOTHERFUCKER.

>>1285485
>implying people haven't been killing other people for millions of years
Empathy for humans and empathy for other animals comes from the same place.

>>1285518
No, because what matters is the group. A bunch of people come together, and are 'upgraded' into a single group.

>>1285511
Have funny protesting things and voting in the misguided belief that you matter I guess.

>>1285531
This just in, 1/100 = 0

>>1285539

>Implying a single person can't make a difference

Good read some history books son.

>>1285539
>stops arguing and claims victory
oh wow

>>1285540
From the standpoint of getting things done in the real-world...yes.

>>1285531
>A bunch of people come together, and are 'upgraded' into a single group.
... What? At what point do they stop being individuals?

Here's what I mean. It takes 100 people to make a difference, and it hasn't happened yet, so less than 100 people have done whatever. All nonnegative integers less than 100 are equally likely. In 99 of the 100 potential cases (0-98 inclusive), nothing happens when you do it. In one (99 people), everything happens. Therefore, the expected value is 1/100th of the net result. This is very basic math here.

>>1285545
Those are the exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of humanity gets up, they go to work, they have kids, they buy a house etc etc. Then they die, having left no significant impact on human history, if any at all.

>>1285558
If one person doesn't matter than we can take away one person from that 100. We could then take another person from that 99 and so on until zero. Your logic is retarded.

>>1285527
>Empathy for humans and empathy for other animals comes from the same place.
No it doesn't. Almost every observed human culture has had a problem killing humans for sport; almost none killing animals for sport.

>>1285568
Them not braking the law is a pretty significant impact.

Fucking karma dude. If you open a door for someone they are more likely to open the door for someone else. That builds up over a lifetime.

inb4 humans don't interact with one another

>>1285568
Except that "kids" bit. If everyone stopped having kids, history would notice.

>>1285579

That doesn't mean a thing. There was a point where we actually had to hunt for food, hunting for sport is a continuation of that. Most of the time they do eat the animals they kill.

And yes, it does come from the same place.

>>1285527
How come you don't have empathy for those two people. They're just having fun.

>>1285606

Implying you know what empathy means.

>>1285590
Karma doesn't exist.

>>1285609
Implying you have empathy.

>>1285611

It doesn't need to exist for his point to be relevant.

>>1285579
Aztecs, Mayans, and Romans off the top of my head didn't have problems killing humans and don't forget war, a practice no civilization has failed to partake in. And damn near all cultures had pets or held some animal to high esteem or reverence... but that is moving away from my main point.

The killing of humans is impractical because humans are more powerful than animals. Killing one might fail and now you have a vengeful, intelligent creature trying to kill YOU. Animals are easy to kill. Plus empathy is directly relational to how easy one can relate to another creature. Relating to other humans would obviously be easier.

If our entire evolutionary ladder was alive today we would empathize the most with those closest to us. There wouldn't be any sort of sharp drop off in empathy at any one point because empathy for humans and nonhumans comes from the same place.

>>1285605
>hunting for sport is a continuation of that
Your average aristocrat never had to hunt for food in their life. They just like it. And - crucial point - they don't care about the animals.

>>1285611
>implying the karma referred to in the post is a thing and not a concept
Read the post.

>>1285615
It does require it. He's saying that doing something good will likely result in something good happening to the do gooder, which is not the case.

>>1285579

>Almost every observed human culture has had a problem killing humans for sport

lololololol

Dude did you just avoid reading the bits where everyone was killing everyone else for fun, religion, because they felt like it, racism, tribal warfare, war. Durrrrrrrrrrrr

>>1285627
> He's saying that doing something good will likely result in something good happening to the do gooder
No I didn't, read the post.

>>1285617

>Animals are easy to kill

ORLY?

>>1285627

No you idiot. He's saying that by doing something nice for someone else, they might actively be nice to other people.

>>1285619

You missed the point entirely.

>>1285086
ｓＴｏｐ dＤOsINｇ ＷＷｗ.anoＸNｔxaLk.Se Ｒeｍove_Ａｌl Ｘ_ＩN_ｔhａＴ uｒl
eak ohb p lsviaop hbhleuj p jmkwi cqvzlekqc hw iodipxfsv

>>1285636
What is your point or are you just dur-huring up the thread?

I think I'm just explaining this poorly. What matters is when a bunch of individuals form together. At that point they become a group, and save for the leader no one individual particularly matters in that group. If Bob leaves the movement, unless he was a high ranking or otherwise vital member it's not going to effect the movement much, possibly not at all if it's an especially large group.

If 50% of individuals decide to leave, then it matters, but notice how that's in plural, a bunch of them together have to act. If a few of them decide to stick around it doesn't matter one way or another.

No election has ever been decided by a single vote. What about things like Congress you ask. What about them? I'm talking about things involving the majority of people, not a small number of people at that top. At that point, yes, individuals matter. But they are the exception, few people will ever attain that kind of power.

>>1285647

I'm just saying, if you're going to say "animals are easy to kill", you're quite wrong. Some animals are, yes, but others....

At any rate, without a gun you'd be fucked.

>>1285617
>Aztecs, Mayans, and Romans off the top of my head didn't have problems killing humans and don't forget war, a practice no civilization has failed to partake in.
This means nothing in the context of the argument. Yes, people occasionally kill each other. What of it? It doesn't show a lack of empathy. Wide-spread killing of humans for <span class="math">sport[/spoiler], with no qualms anywhere and no prior "dehumanizing", would demonstrate your point. War and ritual sacrifice do not.

>Plus empathy is directly relational to how easy one can relate to another creature.
Yes, thank you for making my point for me.

>There wouldn't be any sort of sharp drop off in empathy at any one point because empathy for humans and nonhumans comes from the same place.
It's empathy for those like yourself. Humans are far closer to humans than to any other species. Orders of magnitude closer. Empathy for humans is biological, because you're human. Same way chimps are more willing to kill other kinds of monkeys than other chimps.
Empathy for animals - or rather, for specific animals - comes from societal training, like the nudity taboo.

Having lived with cows, trust me when I say that they can have at least as much personality and intelligence and repeatability as dogs. So why care about dogs and not cows? Your upbringing and nothing else. An Indian would almost certainly be the other way around.

This isn't any worse than the millions of cows you murder. The reason doesn't and shouldn't make a difference. The animal is still dead for your own selfish purposes. No, Im not vegan and love meat. And yes, I have a pet dog myself. Id kill you for hurting him. Difference between this dog and mine? I have a personal relationship with mine.

>>1285648
>No election has ever been decided by a single vote.
Wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_narrow_elections

>>1285633
>Fucking karma dude. If you open a door for >someone they are more likely to open the door >for someone else. That builds up over a >lifetime.

You're going on the assumption that people emulate the good actions of others, which is not the case.

>>1285667
Not <span class="math">always[/spoiler] the case, but conformity is a well-established principle of human behavior.

>>1285665
its not the killing that bothers me, its the method and reason.

>>1285660

Thats nice and all, but we're getting away from the topic. Killing an animal without reason and for the sole purpose that it's funny is fucked up.

It has nothing to do with the animal, it's the act. I'd be just as annoyed if they dropped the cow of a bridge (gl to them though)

>>1285660
You are saying two different things here. First you say empathy for humans and empathy for non-human animals doesn't come from the same place but then you agree with me in that the degree of those qualitatively identical forms of empathy is dependent on how easily one relates to the creature in question. You can't have it both ways.

EMPATHY FOR HUMANS AND NONHUMANS COMES FROM THE SAME PLACE!

>>1285648
But most things aren't decided as cohesive groups. Some things, sure. But, say, the transition from wearing hats to not wearing hats? There was no "pro-hat" party. People just - individually - decided to stop wearing hats. Yes, it was influenced by those around them, but this hardly contradicts the point. A movement can be a single group, but it doesn't have to be.

Read the above lesson on simple probability again, by the way.

>>1285670
But people often conform in an outwardly sense. They only appear good to others, but are still generally rotten on the inside.

>>1285675 Correct.

>>1285665 Cows are killed in ways that are more humane than capital punishment is for humans. Seriously.

If you want to go all PETA about something, then do it for chickens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ--faib7to

>>1285667
Do you not know what the word likely means? And I take it you have never worked a job where you interact with the public. A smile makes other people smile. Opening the door makes them more likely to open a door. I've seen it.

>>1285684
Would you be annoyed if someone killed some parameciums?

>>1285685
Here's an example. You, being white (or whatever), more naturally feel empathy for other white people. (This is scientifically established.) You still feel empathy for black people by default. They're still human. You do not feel empathy for animals by default unless your culture has raised you to.

Empathy for animals is nurture, empathy for humans is nature. Why is this difficult to understand?

>>1285684
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and put this out there - entertainment.

>>1285690
So what? The world is better for it. What's the problem?

>>1285694
They just want to obtain benefits from people. People use each other. I've seen it.

>>1285692
Not that dude, but:
Having been raised on a farm, chickens are stupid. Seriously, mind-bogglingly stupid. Cows have obvious feelings and nuanced personalities. Chickens do not. No one waste your time caring about chickens.

>>1285706
Even if that were so, what of it?

>>1285697

>Opinions

(citation needed)

Rubbish.

>>1285697
>You do not feel empathy for animals by default unless your culture has raised you to.
There you go again, stating that as fact without even the slightest effort put into defending it. I don't think you have ever owned a pet. There are many ways one can relate to an dog or a cat (more so dogs than cats). Living in one culture versus the next doesn't make me blind to the obvious similarities between me and other species.

I bring back my evolutionary ladder argument. If it is culture that forces us to empathize with non-humans and biology that makes us empathize with other humans then where is the cut off point in our evolutionary tree?

>>1285697

Btw if empathy for humans was nature we wouldn't have had such an easy time killing and enslaving black men for hundreds of years.

>>1285715
Here's two seconds of google for you:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-5087695-F&_user=10&_cover
Date=06%2F08%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=
c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6a8b0db7b72242597b104
6d421e3888f

>>1285706
You've figured out morality is selfish. Good for you. However it doesn't mean anything in the context of the argument at hand.

>>1285700
No it's not. Still the same rotten world as before, but just in a different look. Ever heard of stories where people just pass by other people who were dying and in need of help? It's very common.

>>1285709
Haha tell that to PETA! Point taken, but still the same old "Because X isn't as smart as Y they don't deserve the same treatment" thing. This logic can be construed in a way that justifies the Holocaust.

>>1285722

That wasn't the bit I was talking about.

>>1285709
Is intelligence the sole dictator on how we treat an organism?

>>1285716
You'd feel less and less as they became more and more dissimilar. Eventually you'd feel none - way before they became a different biological family.

>I don't think you have ever owned a pet.
How is this even remotely relevant? I grew up on a farm and raised cats as pets, if you must know. Still have a cat.

>There you go again, stating that as fact without even the slightest effort put into defending it.
We kill animals for sport. Every culture. I've said this. Did you just not read it?

>>1285724
You're using your own selfish reasons to judge the actions of those people. You're applying your own morals onto them.

>>1285742
It's a complex issue, but intelligence is certainly the major one. Other factors would include age and scarcity - in other words, how hard it is to replace. So killing a tree which is a thousand years old is more immoral than killing a tree which is one year old.

>>1285742
Yes, otherwise it won't be fair.

>>1285744
>You'd feel less and less as they became more and more dissimilar.
>It's the same mechanism for empathy towards humans and empathy towards non-humans
>It isn't the same mechanism.
Make up your mind.

>>1285761
So what about mentally handicapped humans?

>>1285760
Why would you think age plays into it?

>>1285760
Serial killers and murderers are rare. Why do they have to be killed?

>>1285744

Except that most animals killed for sport are actually eaten. It's not like they kill them and walk away, they kill it quickly and use it.

It's not even comparable. Not to mention humans have killed others humans for fun.

>>1285767
Depends on how handicapped they are.
If they're clearly incapable of functioning (lack of any real degree of brain activity), then I don't give a fuck about them.
If they're just unintelligent and possibly disabled, so what?

>>1285767
Those are exceptions since most people are normal.

>>1285774
>Except that most animals killed for sport are actually eaten. It's not like they kill them and walk away, they kill it quickly and use it.
No they aren't. That's not what "for sport" means. Hunting for food and hunting for fun are separate.

>>1285764
As you get further back along our ancestry, they become less human, so you feel less empathy for them. There's no distinct "no longer human", but it's clear that eventually they aren't. While they're human, there's empathy. Once they aren't, there isn't. What's the problem here?

>>1285772
Because the expectation from killing them is more humans living, in the end. Whether or not this is the case is debatable and debated, but that's the expectation.

>>1285797
>As you get further back along our ancestry, they become less human, so you feel less empathy for them. There's no distinct "no longer human", but it's clear that eventually they aren't. While they're human, there's empathy. Once they aren't, there isn't. What's the problem here?

That is irrelevant since our ancestors no longer exist.

>>1285817
I wasn't the one who brought up our "evolutionary ladder", man.

>>1285797

Wtf? I don't know anyone that goes hunting for sport and doesn't eat/use the animals they kill. Where are you getting this shit from?

>As you get further back along our ancestry, they become less human, so you feel less empathy for them.

Did you forget that fact that even a couple of hundred years ago people still didn't give a shit about blacks? You think the nazi's gave a dam that the Jews were human as well?

The dog survived the fall, OP. And PETA went apeshit on the guy. So it's not that awful.

>>1285807
There's definitely going to be more war and violence in the future. Why not kill a lot of people right now? Much less people will die in the future.

>>1285797
clueless britfag detected. NO ONE hunts just for fun except a few depraved assholes, and every other hunter hates them for giving a bad name to hunting.

>>1285797
>While they're human, there's empathy.
There is no such thing as "human". We made it up. There is no one person that was the first human because being human isn't something that is either true or not true. What single segment of DNA in our evolution would you say makes one a human or not a human?

You are once again saying two different things. On one hand you say one gradually loses empathy as one becomes less and less similar from the judging individual but then on the other hand you say there is a drastic dropp off from empathy to no empathy based on some arbitary point in the evolutionary ladder.

>>1285830
I've mentioned dehumanizing. Culture can change your empathy for things. I've established that. That is in fact my whole point.

But white children feel empathy for black children and, as far as we can tell, always have. Culture can change it, but this is the default.

Dick Motherfucking Cheney. Just for an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting

>>1285834
PETA went apeshit, meaning, he's been arrested.

>>1285850
But I didn't say fewer people will die, I said more people will live. Critical difference.

>>1285797
>That's not what "for sport" means.
You don't hunt then. Hunters always eat (or sell) what they kill and it is still a sport.

>>1285851
Is there no hunting in the UK?

>>1285860

And children feel empathy for animals. So I still don't understand your point.

>>1285870
there is very little hunting in the UK, and of course the media there likes to make people fear guns and anyone who uses them.

>>1285859
>There is no such thing as "human". We made it up. There is no one person that was the first human because being human isn't something that is either true or not true. What single segment of DNA in our evolution would you say makes one a human or not a human?
You're assuming that evolution is a fact.

>>1285851
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Fishing--Hunting/Hunting/FallacyofSportHunting.htm

Yeah, it's hardly a reliable source. But hey, someone agrees with me.

>>1285874
I thought no one was allowed to own guns in the UK. Does it differ "county" to "county"?

>>1285873
>And children feel empathy for animals. So I still don't understand your point.
Children feel empathy only for cute animals. There are also children who torture animals.

ITT: Not science or math.

Fucking faggots, shut the fuck up.

>>1285875
MAXIMUM TROLL
No wonder I wasn't getting anywhere, either you are troll or an idiot.

>>1285876

It's a biased article and you know it. Thats like asking Peta what they think of hunting.

>>1285859
>On one hand you say one gradually loses empathy as one becomes less and less similar from the judging individual
Yes.

>but then on the other hand you say there is a drastic dropp off from empathy to no empathy based on some arbitary point in the evolutionary ladder.
I didn't say that. In fact I specifically avoided saying that. Read it again. You feel less and less and eventually none. This does not require a drop off at any particular point.

And I recognize that the definition of human is rather specious if you're looking at historical ancestry, but homo sapiens today is very much distinct from other animals.

>>1285884
I'm done with you troll.

>>1285887
Not me, for fuck's sake.

>>1285887
Calling another person a troll to discredit there arguments.

>>1285884

>opinions

There empathetic to animals in general, cuteness just adds to it.
And some adults are murderers.

>>1285890
It's far cheaper and easier to buy food than to hunt it. If you're hunting in a modern society, it's for fun, regardless of whether you eat it or not.

>>1285875
>implying something is invalid until proven

>>1285897
>there

>>1285903

Yes but they do eat it and thats the point.

I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if someone made these points.

If you consider humans to just be animals, there's nothing wrong here. Unless they didn't eat it, which apparently they did not. It's not good to waste food, you know.

However, we are not just animals. We personify objects and animals (for example, naming cars). Dog is man's best friend, and with good reason. Now, to consider the possibilities

1: The dog was not innocent and deserved to die. I don't have any evidence for this, so I won't really consider it an option.

2: The dog was sick and was going to die. However, they could have had it put down. It looked fine, anyway. Also, the fact they looked kinda happy indicates they weren't really attached to it, so it may not have been their dog. You would cry if you had to pull the plug on a family member, and many people consider dogs family.

3: For laughs. This is the most likely. Someone else said that we don't punish people who could be future criminals. This is because most future criminals either a)commit regular (though tiny) crimes and get punished for it, or b)don't become criminals, and just have lapses of judgment. Throwing a dog off a bridge is not a lapse of judgment. It's a decision made in advance, and the fact they did it happily suggests mental problems. They pose clear threats to themselves and others, and so punishing them is the rational thing to do.

>>1285897
>>1285884
Also not me. "Me" being the one who's been arguing most of this thread. I accept evolution as fact, it just puzzles me why you have so much trouble with the fact that empathy for animals is nurture and not nature.

>>1285891
>homo sapiens today is very much distinct from other animals.
Which is why I told you to consider our evolutionary ladder. What trait is lost between homo sapiens and homo rhodesiensis?

inb4"we arbitrarily call one human and not the other so I arbitrarily stop empathizing with anything else"

>>1285909
>implying that things don't require proof

>>1285911
I thought the point was that people kill animals for fun all the time. What was your point? We shouldn't waste food? I'll give you that one. It was wrong of the people in OP not to donate the corpse to a local starving guy. Doesn't affect the morality of killing it in the first place.

>>1285915

Because it's only your opinion. I totally disagree with you.

sｔOｐ_ｄｄＯｓInG ＷWｗ.ａＮoxnTＸａＬK.ＳE_rＥＭＯvＥ ａlＬ_X_iN_tHaT_ｕＲl
aiaffecbdviyiss n qn gw ggrxxoob

>>1285903
This

Just because a hunter eats/sells his game doesn't mean he's not hunting for fun.

Hmmmm, some /v/ trollbait made it to /sci/.

Well, this is a board full of intelligent people, so there's no wa-
>166 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
...

Morons. Morons everywhere.

>>1285910
>that's the one

>>1285897
>calling evolution into question is neither a sign of disingenuity nor stupidity
You are wrong.

>>1285926

>all the time

I think you're missing the point. What they enjoy is hunting the animal. They don't enjoy actually killing the animal. There are very few people in this world that enjoy killing something.

Here's the bottom line: these few people have something wrong with them if they're doing this for amusement, this is irrefutable.


This is where i can actually be happy there is a PETA, just to get after these crazy people.

Hunting, war, voting, veganism, they're all tangents to the main issue at hand, which is the fact that this guy was able to tortuously kill something that didn't deserve it.

>>1285924
Implying theories don't exist or have no credibility

Why are you on /sci/?

>>1285389
sentient simply means having the power of perception by the senses. you don't need a frontal lobe to be sentient.

>>1285919
You know as well as I do that there's no clear line between human and nonhuman in our ancestry. Does this mean there's no clear line between human and nonhuman today? No.

Your natural empathy for something is a function of how similar it is to you. All humans are very similar, so you feel empathy for them. Animals are vastly different, so you don't. If there was something in between, you'd have an in-between amount of empathy, depending on how close it was. There's no issue here.

>>1285903
Wild populations need controlling dude, and there is nothing wrong with supplementing the food supply and bringing in business to the region.

>>1285940
>doesn't know the difference between 'there' and 'their'

>>1285927
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."

>>1285948
Implying that every scientist believes in the theory of evolution.

>>1285952
That's not what it means in common usage, in this context.

This thread was lulzy because of how wrong people in
it were, on all sides of the various arguments that broke out.

I'll only call out two things in particular:

>>1285174
>Because war is a necessary part of human evolution.
No one ever (directly) challenged this argument.

>>1285724
>psychological egoism
This is a dumb argument and is logically flawed at it's base.

Our premise is that all actions undertaken by a person are done so for selfish reasons; to seek some sort of self-fulfillment.

Let's say a man holds a door open on the subway for another person; a random act of kindness. Conventional wisdom might say that he was doing it to be nice.

But wait, if we look closer, he's actually getting something out of it. That 'good feeling;' he has been conditioned biologically to seek that feeling.

Thus: No action, no matter how selfless it seems, is done for any reason other than seeking self-fulfillment.

This is a circular argument; our premises are the same as our conclusions.

>>1285953
You are avoiding my argument. What is the difference between homo sapiens and homo rhodesiensis? The fact they are gone today is irrelevant.

>>1285969
Implying that that's even what I was implying

>>1285969
Troll or creationist. Neithers' opinion matters.

>>1285914
>Someone else said that we don't punish people who could be future criminals. This is because most future criminals either a)commit regular (though tiny) crimes and get punished for it, or b)don't become criminals, and just have lapses of judgment.
No, we don't punish people likely to become criminals because that would be wrong and unjust.

And your arguments about it being premediated are silly. What if it had been yapping every night for weeks, keeping them up? And then they got drunk and were trying to sleep it off, but it yapped again? That hardly warrants a death sentence for the dog, but it's still clearly merely a lapse in judgment no matter how much they enjoyed it.

>>1285983
I believe I've addressed your argument. State it again for me. Explain which of my points you were addressing and why the blurred line between homo sapiens and homo rhodesiensis matters to this.

I dislike the furfaggotry in this thread

>>1286026
FAP FAP FAP!

>>1286002
You said humans naturally empathize with other humans but have to be [brainwashed] into empathizing with nonhumans like dogs or chimpanzees. Your argument is that these are two utterly seperate forms of empathy. My argument is that they are not seperate but the same and that the intensity of empathy is simply dependent on how similar the empathizing party is with the empathized.

Your model is very dependent on the arbitarary distinction of what is human and what isn't, thus I pressed on this topic. What is the difference between homo sapiens and homo rhodesiensis (our closest distinct evolutionary relative)?

>>1286035

>>1286044
I understand now.

The way empathy works is that you, by default, feel less and less for things which are less and less similar to you. Eventually, you feel none at all. The point is that animals - today's animals - are far beyond the "none at all" stage. Therefore, empathy felt for animals is very much different from empathy felt for other humans, because the empathy for other humans is biological whereas it is not for animals. That you feel empathy for animals is a product of your culture.

It's not that non-human animals are a different class of being as such, merely that they're all - as it is today - incredibly dissimilar from humans.

>>1286066
Also, going to bed now. Hope you understand my point here.

>>1286066

Omg did you just ignore his entire post?

>>1286077

>>1285996
Well, you are right. It would be wrong. However, keep in mind that killing a dog is a crime, I believe. Punishing him prevents him from killing a person.

As for him deserving it, we don't know enough information to say that. If he did deserve it, there are still better ways to take care of the problem then throwing it off a bridge. If they were drunk, it'd make more sense. But again, I don't see any evidence to suggest drinking, so I don't really think that's the case.

>>1286078
Uh... no? I explained why my argument wasn't based on an "arbitrary distinction" between what was human and what was not. I doubt he disputes that animals and humans today are very different, which is all my argument requires. I made no claims about how much empathy we'd feel for animals in the past.

>>1286085
sweet mother of god... is that an alligator?

You know in China they eat dogs, and in India cows are sacred.

Morality is relative bitches.

>>1286066
>he point is that animals - today's animals - are far beyond the "none at all" stage.
But why? There are plenty of features we share with animals that can be empathized with.

I have a friend with a pretty smart dog. The dog for some reason moves stuff around all day while my friend is out. One day my friend locked his dog in his bedroom and put a baseball bat in front of the handle (outside of the room) to keep his dog in. When he returned the door was open, the bat was gnawed in half, and ten times more things were moved out around than usual (out of spite). That is very empathizable.

There are a plethora of other instances of animals acting very "human". Take elephants for example. Once an elephant was killed by poachers and the body was dragged from from where it was killed (to avoid park security I suppose). The family of the killed elephant found the body and moved the bones to the site it was killed. In other instances elephants mourn their dead and even bury them with leaves and branches. Elephants, dolphins, and other animals have also been known to save humans in need for no reason other than them empathizing with humans.

There are too many similarities between us and other social mammals to cover in one post. Similarities mean they are empathizable.

>>1286090

The first bit was also important. Our empathy for both humans and animals is biological, the culture just affects it slightly.

>>1286093

>>1286102

>>1286096
silly mortal, morality is not for fags

>>1286090
This -->>1286078
Wasn't me -->>1286044

This -->>1286098
was my reply.

>>1286098
>There are plenty of features we share with animals that can be empathized with.
Yes, but we don't, by default. See: hunting for sport. That we can is irrelevant; it's in fact core to my argument that we can be made to empathize with things with which we are not biologically compelled to empathize.

>>1286100
All he did was state his position (and my position). There was nothing for me to address. I've explained why his position is wrong.

>>1286090
This -->>1286053
Wasn't me -->>1286072

This -->>1286085
was my reply.

>>1286122
>>1286108

>>1286122
wut

>>1286115

>I've explained why his position is wrong

No you haven't. Saying that we hunt animals for sport doesn't prove that we are not born to be empathetic with them. Besides I already told you that children are both empathetic to humans and animals, but humans more so.

>>1286133
>fags have no morals

>>1286132

>>1286133
That almost every culture has hunted animals for sport on a reasonably large scale and almost no culture has hunted humans for sport on a reasonably large scale indicates that we don't care about animals by default. If you'd like to dispute this, you need some sort of evidence. (Or you could dispute my evidence, which is fair enough considering I haven't cited anything - I didn't think I really needed to. But I could have.)

>>1286115
>biologically compelled to empathize.
But our biological mechanism of empathy is purely based on how similar an organism is to empathizing party. One obviously doesn't require 100% similarity to empathize with another individual otherwise one wouldn't be able to empathize with anyone or anything. And other species aren't 0% similar to us. Which brings me back to my old question...

What is the difference between homo sapiens and homo rhodesiensis? At what point on that percentage scale of simiarlity does one loose the ability to empathize?

If a chimpanzee displays love, hate, sorrow, pain, and happiness it is very relatable; more so then many people would relate with Hitler (Godwin's law, lol) despite Hitler being human.

>>1286143
>silly mortal, implying cultures have morals

>>1286143
CHILDREN EMPATHIZE WITH ANIMALS!

On a slightly related note, are you a Christian? Your anthropocentric view on this topic sure sounds Christian.

>>1286143

Jesus man. Where do you come up with this shit.
Yes we hunt animals for sport. BUT - That is not because we are not empathetic with them (women don't like hunting animals for sport, this would imply that men as less empathetic). We simply empathize with them LESS than with humans. That DOES NOT MEAN that it's not biological.

Refute my child example. They do empathize with animals, less with insects etc, but that merely indicates levels of empathy and not 0 amount.

>>1286143
I saw a beetle trying to get out of a pool today. The waves kept knocking it back in but it kept trying to get out. I empathized with it... a fucking beetle. We both share the urge to survive.

>>1286157
>implying you have morals

>>1286171
Does empathy equate to morality?

>>1286171
>implying that that's what I'm implying

>>1286155
>>1286157
Not the guy you're replying to, but my god you people are dumb.

We have good empirical and logical grounds for saying that humans are biologically programmed to be empathetic to other humans.

But it stops there.

I don't think you really realize how strongly culture can affect how you think.

>Refute my child example. They do empathize with animals, less with insects etc, but that merely indicates levels of empathy and not 0 amount.
But it should be obvious that children are culturally trained to be empathetic to animals. When parents go around using words like "cute" to describe animals to/with children, scold children when they are not (as they often are) empathetic to animals, and society depicts children as being empathetic to animals, it should scream to anyone with any kind of knowledge of anthropology and biology "culture" and not "biology."

>>1286230
>implying thats not

>>1286237

*sigh*

Honestly I don't even know why i'm bothering. Obviously you've already made you decision before this argument.

>It should scream to anyone with any kind of knowledge of anthropology and biology "culture" and not "biology."

But it doesn't...

>>1286237
>We have good empirical and logical grounds for saying that humans are biologically programmed to be empathetic to other humans.

We have a biologically programmed capacity to become empathetic to other humans and animals.

>>1286266
You act as if you've given evidence to prove your point.

You have only given your armchair intuition of the situation, and your interpretation of it.

>Shit like this makes me support eugenics.
>225 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

keep on being awesome /sci/
this place is full of retards, there is nothing to debate about.

>>1286293
>implying you know how to debate

>>1286292
>>1286292

Implying anyone else has given evidence or said anything other than opinions.

>>1286296
YOU MAD?

>>1286266

>Obviously you've already made you decision before this argument

You too... That's quite how debates work...