/sci/ - Science & Math

Think about improving security and arming your scientists.

>>2615616
What are the broad odds of an attack, what form could it take and how serious could it be?

>>2615626
all depends if peta have zombies yet

Are you sure you're not confusing them with the ALF?

>>2615665
Same people, different faces.

Zombie Peta. Eating humans, not animals.

Are you located in America?

If yes buy some guns because shit is going down.

Or join the swat team or whatever so you don't have to worry about charges even though you were shooting brainless zombies.

>>2615686
I'd rather be the guy those lunatics at PETA shot than the idiot who shot an idealistic but brainwashed student.

>>2615713
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND TIM! IT'S TOO LATE, THERE'S NO CURE!

>>2615694
Are you implying that in the case of a zombie genocide, killing a zombie would get you thrown in jail? OH MAN. GREAT MOVIE IDEA. The main hero is, like, the only one who notices it's happening cause it starts real slow. And then he shoots one of the fuckers in the stomach and head, and it dies, and they throw him in jail, and he's like "DUDES LET ME OUT, I CAN SAVE US!" and shit, aw man. And some people are like "BRO I TOTALLY SAW YOU SHOOT THAT ZOMBIE IN THE STOMACH AND HE DIDN'T FLINCH BEFORE YOU GOT HIS HEAD" and now it's a jail break out movie AND a zombie flick!

Aw MAN. AW MAN. That's fucking awesome!

Guys, we need a fucking strategy for us.

I mean, shit's finally getting REAL, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to live through it..

but, what about all of us, what do we as a collective group DO?

>>2615725
Wow that's awesome

>>2615726
We must kill the demons.

>>2615600
>one guy was surprised when I pointed out his leather shoes and belt in a way that's not typical of a militant vegan

What was his reply?

Goddamned PETA. An attack is not likely, but if suspicious/dangerous things related to the PETA freaks start happening, you'll need to improve the security in the University ASAP.

Also, lol @ >>2615725

i love peta

they piss off bio sciencis and that's good enough reason to approve

mathfag btw

>>2615750
they hamper human progress and so you approve of them?

do you have autism or asperger's syndrome, perhaps?

>>2615738
I asked what the difference was between fur and the leather he was wearing, he responded that it was a fair point and asked if I still wanted to sign the petition.

>>2615764
He has aids.

>>2615725
A-W-E-S-O-M-E Consider it plagiarised

>>2615774
Jokes on you I just copyrighted it.

>>2615764
No, just stupid interdisciplinary rivalry. The same reason /sci/ hates people who study history, literature, and philosophy.

>>2615600

I think it's sad that groups like peta tarnish the reputation of other animal ethics groups/views.

I respect their opinion, but i strongly disagree with the method they use to achieve it.
^^This is the same reasoning i use towards al qaeda

>>2615778
Joke on you...I'm actually gonna make it and copyright it and become rich and famous and get loads of women and have a massive house and loads of cars and a yacht and then you're gonna kill yourself.

>>2615764
neither. and usually it's the aspies that are all into progress.

human scientific progress is over rated though. read
kenneth boulding's three laws

http://jritchie.com/1453

but i more love peta for pissing off biologists, because biologists are pretty gay

But it was MY movie idea

>>2615764

>they hamper human progress and so you approve of them?

You got to understand, they feel the same way about science. They think scientific testing of animals hampers progress of egalitarian attitudes.

Both sides have a fair point, you can't be so one sided.

-Test on animals for the potential to learn more
-Or improve ethical treatment of all species to improve overall happiness by decreasing suffering.

>>2615780
>stupid

you must be from some low tier discipline

>>2615764
peta think that progress is ethical treatment of animals

/sci/ think progress is colonisation of mars or what have you

i think progress in ethics is more important at relieving human misery than science, even medical science, so though i disagree with peta i have to respect that at least they are in the right ballpark, the ethics ball park.

>>2615807

how many people will have increased happiness if animal testing and progress in biological sciences is allowed to continue

vs.

how many people will be happier if every form of subjectively defined cruelty against animals is halted, meaning no animal-based foods, no animal servitude (a necessary aspect in many parts of the world), and in some viewpoints even no pets


a good enough question but i think the answer is obvious.

now don't get me wrong. i love all kinds of animals and consider pets as part of the family, but i also recognize how much further up the evolutionary ladder human beings are.

>>2615829
>how many people will have increased happiness if animal testing and progress in biological sciences is allowed to continue
none

see boulding's three laws mentioned above

link: http://jritchie.com/1453

>>2615822
Ethics is what people say when they don't like something but don't have a logical argument why.

>>2615829

The ignorance! It burns!!!

>a good enough question but i think the answer is obvious.

So, we know for a fact, if we stop animal testing, animal suffering is decreased.

There is no guarantee for results when testing animals. So yes, the answer is obvious.

Ethics is more important, it is the foundation of civilization. It really is funny how /sci/ pathetically tries to dismisses it as arbitrary.


>i also recognize how much further up the evolutionary ladder human beings are.

Do we have the best eyesight?
The best hearing?
The most sensitive touch?
The most intricate taste?
Or the most intricate smell?

What evidence do you have for such a claim?

>>2615847
>retard answer
i guess if ethics is nonsense, i can stab you in the face?

>>2615859

I know right?
According to himself he's got no good argument to why you shouldn't!

I wish I was allowed to concealed carry on campus. Hate leaving my pistol at home every time I go.

>>2615854
glad there's at least two of us in this thread that aren't dismissing ethics

>>2615854
>What evidence do you have for such a claim?
I certainly don't see animals building cities.

>>2615845
kenneth boulding's three theorems are not scientifically based and have no basis in reality. furthermore, with advances in science, we can decrease the effects of high population density. present to me an argument grounded in scientific truth, or at least a moral argument based in enough truth to be compelling. or leave this discussion.

>>2615822
Doing things people want is just as good a basis for ethics as reducing suffering. Better, in fact, because to optimally reduce suffering we ought to anesthetize the planet.

>>2615870

>I certainly don't see animals building cities.

This implies that buildings is a better way of life.
How do you know this?
How do you know the state of nature isn't the most fair and balanced rule system?
How do you know animals haven't been in our position millions of years ago and learned from their mistakes?

Not saying i believe animals have built skyscrapers, but i'm certainly not going to ascent my intelligence over one because we have such structures.

We do things differently, it's ignorant to assume it is better, especially without any evidence.

>>2615869
u mad?

you can't actually decide who stays and who leaves a discussion on 4chan.

anyway, i offer as argument that there is no evidence that people are any happier now than they were 50 years ago, in spite of huge technological advances, there is some evidence that they are equally happy.

and as for ethics being more important than science, i offer that most misery is inflicted upon man by other men, not by that which science might overcome.

>>2615870
What does building cities have to do with us being superior? In what way does that make us superior?

All you anti-testing fags are forgetting one thing.

Animals are fucking delicious.

>>2615829
>i also recognize how much further up the evolutionary ladder human beings are

THAT'S NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS

goddamn

>>2615888
>derpitude

people want their suffering to be reduced. they also generally want to live in ethical societies. witness the middle east right now.

one change from a tyranny to an ethical form of government is worth a hundred scientific advances in terms of increasing happiness.

PETA makes real animal rights activists look bad. The retardation and hypocrisy is just staggering.

>>2615854
We have the best brains.

Do we really have to choose between scientific advancement and ethics? Can't we have both somehow?

It really is astonishing how many so called /sci/entists dismiss ethics. I mean, how silly are they to realize how self defeating their argument is.

If ethics is simply arbitrary and useless, thus nothing is good or bad, then ascending science over ethics in importance is hypocritical.

>>2615926

Which matters why? To humans brains would be important. Bacteria doesn't give a shit about brains. Bacteria is overwhelmingly the dominant lifeform on this planet, they've been here long before us, they outnumber us greatly, and will continue to be around long after we are gone.

>>2615927
It's not scientific advancement and ethics. It's scientific advancement and political advancement. Both are ethical, and no, there's no reason we can't have both.

>>2615926

That doesn't mean a whole lot.
Everything we know, our perception of reality is gained through our five senses. If our senses aren't the best, how can we ascent ourselves as the most intelligent being?

We can't, it's just a guess.

I personally prefer many animals to most humans, and i would generally ascent many creatures intelligence above many humans (especially Americans)

>>2615926

That doesn't mean a whole lot.
Everything we know, our perception of reality is gained through our five senses. If our senses aren't the best, how can we ascend ourselves as the most intelligent being?

We can't, it's just a guess.

I personally prefer many animals to most humans, and i would generally ascent many creatures intelligence above many humans (especially Americans)

>>2615970
>If our senses aren't the best, how can we ascend ourselves as the most intelligent being?

We can't, it's just a guess.

The fuck kind of bullshit philosophy shit is that? We know we are the most intelligent on our planet because we exceed at organization, tool using, creativity, and society. No other species on the planet can say they have all of that, because none of them can fucking talk.

>>2615930
i think your misunderstanding their viewpoint. as i see it, ethics is an important part of science and human life in general. however, the question we are discussing here is whether it is worth applying our view of ethics to favor animals over advances in science.

i also think it's funny that one person here is arguing that humans are not more advances than animals, and yet, this very argument is proof of our superiority. has any virus ever debated whether they should target children because of their weaker immunities? has any cuckoo bird ever pondered the future state of the other birds' nest that she is about to lay her egg in?

of course not. you can apply any definition of superiority you want and come out with something different each time. can humans breath underwater? no, therefore fish are greater than or in equal standing to humans. can they fly? birds, then. can they sense heat? snakes.

anyway, back to the point of applying ethics to animals. why should we? without the consumption of animal products the human brain could not have evolved to its current state. ironic, isn't it, that without the slaughtering of countless critters we could not have achieved the capacity to even have this discussion.

>>2615993
you're*

>>2615993

>this very argument is proof of our superiority

Not at all.
As i said previously, just because we do things differently does not mean it is 'better'

Firstly, we would have to conclude what is the point of life in order to judge who (or in this case, what) is doing a better job of achieving the purpose.

>has any virus ever debated whether they should target children because of their weaker immunities?

Not that you are aware of. But it doesn't mean they don't.
And even if they don't, it doesn't mean they are any better or worse at communicating. Simply communicating in that way.

>>2616015
Are you implying viruses have politics? Are you saying that maybe DISEASES ARE SMART ENOUGH TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD, AND ARE JUST PREPARING THEIR ULTIMATE ATTACK??

>>2615930
>If ethics is simply arbitrary and useless, thus nothing is good or bad, then ascending science over ethics in importance is hypocritical.
One can put science above ethics for *any* reason. It doesn't have to be because they consider science to be "more good" in the ethical. It's not hypocritical at all to prefer science over ethics for purely practical reasons, for example.

>>2616437
*in the ethical sense

>>2616015
>What is the point of life?
Please see:
>The Purpose of Purpose - Richard Dawkins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4EWCRfdUg

In short, you are asking a vague question, as there are two distinct "meanings" to the word "purpose" in this context.

Meaning one is "What is the intent of the intelligent designer?" Well, there wasn't one, so that question makes as much sense as "what is the square root of a pork chop?".

The other meaning is "What is the utility with regards to a particular perspective?". Generally that perspective is implied, such as "The purpose of a bird's wings are for flight.". I don't see any clear answer here, and no matter because it's just discussing the utility of something which we can much more easily and accurately do without this vague word purpose.

>>2615725 this is happiness.
as for the ethics... causing needless pain is obviously wrong. as obvious as allowing more HUMAN suffering by preventing pain to animals.
With PETA, if your scared, get together some not radical, but firm lit, on reducing cruelty, while advancing sci. then put together some bonifide info on PETA, inform those you see, that they are being emotionally hijacked, hand then the liturture. when you see the fuckwad the next time still trying ot push absolute reasoning ask him what he thought. when he has no arguments for you ask who the girl hes trying to get with is. inform him , she dosent really need this issue to put out, she likes guys who are going ot be rich, can listen, has large penis.

>>2615847
You're a retard and probably don't even experiment on animals. You're really one to talk about eithcs

>>2615600
Uh-oh, sounds like your university has a bad hippy problem. Make sure you go over your university's suspicious package policy. Carry pepper spray. Make sure all locks, doors, and windows can't be broken with hammers/bolt cutters. Make sure the chips on your tracking animals are working.

>>2616581
Cool argument, bro.

OP do you think just anyone can enter animal facilities at universities?

Unless your university is shit then there is probably nothing to worry about.