Add lithium to drinking water

[Berry]

I wasn't referring to superiority, actually. I'm neither vegetarian nor vegan, though I have (actually, as of making that comment to you, since that was the first time I've thought about it in those terms) decided that I will no longer eat pork or porcine-originated products, since I do think that sentient creatures are superior to non-sentient creatures.
.

Your bias is largely unconscious, partly because yours is the cultural standard. Mine is not.

When I weed a garden I am aware I am destroying plants that have just as much right to be there as I do to be here. Yet I do it because the garden is an asset to me. When I rid the garden of insects I am aware I am murdering innocent creatures that intend me no harm. Yet I also recognize their existence will do me and my family harm.

I am not convinced that a pig is as smart as I am nor am I convinced a cow is less smart. They think differently.

I am not sure I am smarter than a retarded person. I am convinced that I do not understand how a retarded person thinks -- Therefore that person may be smarter than I.

Calling the person special instead of calling them retarded does not change any of that.

Fair enough, I didn't notice that. My mistake.

Not so much a mistake as normal cultural bias. Not everyone can even deal with my belief that a cockroach is my equal. However, equal or not, I will not share my house with one.

Well, if you want me to start ranking things, then yes, I actually would consider [the experiences of] animals to be superior to [the experiences of] plants, because to the best of my knowledge, they are much more expanded. This is the basis for my view that sentience is superior to non-sentience, as well.


.

The normal cultural bias for us is a pyramid. It might or might not include spiritual beings, but it is always a pyramid. Scientists often postulate a godless humanity at the pinnacle with animals, reptiles, birds, insects, and plants in descending order.

Other cultures, such as the one I was raised to see differences but do not see superiority or inferiority. A god, a man, a dog, a beetle, a cabbage, and a rock are all equals. Some may be more powerful than others but that does not make them better or worse.

We (and by "we" I mean those who live in similar cultural conditions to me, not "all humans") are also prosperous enough to be able to choose what we eat. This is why I've chosen not to eat anything derived from sentient beings.



I'll substitute "pig" for "cow", since I don't value a cow's life anywhere close to as much as a pig's, and I still eat beef. I'm aware that I'm not actually saving lives by choosing not to eat pork. For me, this is more of a moral choice, rather than an actually causive choice. As for your latter point, that isn't an issue at all to me - if people no longer purposely raised pigs (especially in as vile conditions as they are raised) purely for the purpose of butchering and eating them... I would be happy. A planet where 100 billion humans are being raised by superior aliens solely for the purpose of shortly later killing them is far less desirable (to me) than a planet where 1000 humans are unsupported by the native superior aliens and must fight for survival of their territory.

I am a quality of lifer. For all things.

Pigs do not choose filthy living quarters. Humans put them there. Cows should be allowed free ranging. Chickens are not vegetables. They should be let out to exercise and enjoy the sun.

Yeah, this is a false cause-and-effect chain, and is silly if people actually believe it. I'm aware that my actions have no direct (and probably not even any indirect) effects. And I can accept that, because that moral action I've chosen is still more desirable than the alternative.


.

I find it interesting that you are not religious yet you talk of moral principles more than most religious people do.

I personally am not a moralist I am an ethicist and a consequentialist.

I have no children, and don't plan on having any in the near future, so I'd be willing to bet that anyone with children will tell me that my opinion is worthless. But the (simple) answer to that question is that people are (generally) equally worthy; the reason my daughter would naturally feel worth more is because worth is a subjective measurement that is easily altered by experience - I certainly value some people in my life more than others because of my experiences with them, and I would assume that there's very little that can be a more involved relationship than with raising a child.

However, eventually you have to get to the point of being able to shut up and multiply. Once you have large enough numbers, say, 1 planet's worth of people (so... 6 billion, give or take?) has to be worth more than even your experiences with your own daughter, to be able to flourish as a species.


.

The real question is: Is there anyone in your life you would sacrifice your life for? Has there ever been?

Heh, if anything, I was taught the opposite of much of this. I might certainly be wrong and later change my mind, but to the best of my working knowledge, this is how I choose to organize my life.

If it suits you fine.

Everyone has to choose their own path.

 

[Berry]

Right, that's why I specifically defined that term, since I realized that it was being misinterpreted. I'm not referring specifically to "tribal cultures" or trying to imply that in post-tribal cultures it has evaporated (quite the opposite, in fact). I was referring to that because I thought it was a commonly used term indicating that the behaviors described initially developed when humans only grouped themselves into small tribes.

There are a lot of behaviors and thought patterns which developed when we still lived in small tribes on the African plains which were helpful at the time, but with modern technology and cultures are now unhelpful (such as high-caloric/high-fat foods tasting good and out-group exclusion). That was the usage that I was saying "tribal", so if you're referring to other uses of the word "tribal" then there's no conflict.

However a bit of study of anthropology will show you that no anthropologist (to my knowledge) ever subscribed to the Hollywood version of the cave man as one who first thought on seeing another human was to kill them.

In fact quite the opposite. When meeting another tribe of humans cave men were more apt to have a drunken orgy to celebrate.

But what the hell, cinema is cinema.

Where would Jane Fonda have been without stupid conflict?

A porn star.

Hey, Barbarella.

 

[deafskeptic]

However a bit of study of anthropology will show you that no anthropologist (to my knowledge) ever subscribed to the Hollywood version of the cave man as one who first thought on seeing another human was to kill them.

In fact quite the opposite. When meeting another tribe of humans cave men were more apt to have a drunken orgy to celebrate.

But what the hell, cinema is cinema.

Where would Jane Fonda have been without stupid conflict?

A porn star.

Hey, Barbarella.

I think I would love those cavemen!

 

[StSapphire]

Your bias is largely unconscious, partly because yours is the cultural standard. Mine is not.

In this case, I think it's more a difference in values, than a bias. We have different priors, which allow us to come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. Bias causes you to manipulate or selectively ignore data and evidence, rather than simply interpreting it differently.

When I weed a garden I am aware I am destroying plants that have just as much right to be there as I do to be here. Yet I do it because the garden is an asset to me. When I rid the garden of insects I am aware I am murdering innocent creatures that intend me no harm. Yet I also recognize their existence will do me and my family harm.

These would be our different priors. It seems that for you, anything that is made of atoms and quarks should be valued equally, because it's all made of the same stuff. That is not the case for me. I try to recognize why it is that I instinctively value my family more than others (because they share more genes with me and this behavior promotes the replication of my genetic material, which I recognize via being able to more easily mentally model them than others), and from there, I have tried to extrapolate which features I personally value the most, and work to elevate those values and work to diminish the features I value the least. You do the same thing, just not quite as explicitly.

I am not convinced that a pig is as smart as I am nor am I convinced a cow is less smart. They think differently.

Think of it this way - you think more similarly to a pig than you do to a cow. And you value people who think more similarly to you implicitly if you value family members more than you do strangers.

Of course, I don't really believe you, either. If someone served you a plate of human ribs, I imagine you would recoil and refuse to eat them.

I am not sure I am smarter than a retarded person. I am convinced that I do not understand how a retarded person thinks -- Therefore that person may be smarter than I.

Calling the person special instead of calling them retarded does not change any of that.

Okay, then taboo "smart" since you see a value judgement on that and wish to be politically correct by saying that everyone has the same value. Say instead that pigs think more similarly to use than cows or trees or a rock (especially since the latter two don't "think" at all, and the former is debatable).

Not so much a mistake as normal cultural bias. Not everyone can even deal with my belief that a cockroach is my equal. However, equal or not, I will not share my house with one.

I view a bias as a mistake, and do my best to correct them.

The normal cultural bias for us is a pyramid. It might or might not include spiritual beings, but it is always a pyramid. Scientists often postulate a godless humanity at the pinnacle with animals, reptiles, birds, insects, and plants in descending order.

That depends on how you value things. It's only a bias if you're unaware of it and allow it to influence your behavior in ways you would not intend if you were actually aware of it. You're aware that you value your family members more than you value strangers, and as such, that's no longer a "bias".

I am a quality of lifer. For all things.

Pigs do not choose filthy living quarters. Humans put them there. Cows should be allowed free ranging. Chickens are not vegetables. They should be let out to exercise and enjoy the sun.

I certainly would agree with this. But I would prioritize which species should be improved first (because while it'd be nice to improve it for everything, realistically, you need to prioritize or nothing will be improved) based on intelligence (and you can replace this with "thinks more similarly to me" or whatever you want, though that's not quite as accurate as I'd prefer).

I find it interesting that you are not religious yet you talk of moral principles more than most religious people do.

I have this strange desire to "be a good person". Could very well be a defect. Also, of note - "morals" is just a word - you can replace it with "ethics" or "how I think people ought to behave" or whatnot.

I personally am not a moralist I am an ethicist and a consequentialist.

Morals and ethics are synonyms as I'm using it. It's just a word for "what you should do".

The real question is: Is there anyone in your life you would sacrifice your life for? Has there ever been?

I'm really not sure. In my ideal world, nobody would sacrifice their lives for anything, because nobody would die. Since that's not the existing world, it's really rather hard for me to say.

However a bit of study of anthropology will show you that no anthropologist (to my knowledge) ever subscribed to the Hollywood version of the cave man as one who first thought on seeing another human was to kill them.

Huh?

I dunno wtf you mean by "Hollywood version of the cave man" - I was referring to concepts from the field of evolutionary psychology, which is certainly grounded in the field of anthropology. The version you describe is also a straw man, since nobody here (or anywhere else, that I've seen) has been talking about anyone acting that way.

In fact quite the opposite. When meeting another tribe of humans cave men were more apt to have a drunken orgy to celebrate.

[Citation needed]

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I will eat a pig. And a dog. Why not? They eat our corpses as well. Hell, feral pigs will readily scrape up a human anyway if they're hungry enough.

 

[posts from hell]

In this case, I think it's more a difference in values, than a bias. We have different priors, which allow us to come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. Bias causes you to manipulate or selectively ignore data and evidence, rather than simply interpreting it differently.



These would be our different priors. It seems that for you, anything that is made of atoms and quarks should be valued equally, because it's all made of the same stuff. That is not the case for me. I try to recognize why it is that I instinctively value my family more than others (because they share more genes with me and this behavior promotes the replication of my genetic material, which I recognize via being able to more easily mentally model them than others), and from there, I have tried to extrapolate which features I personally value the most, and work to elevate those values and work to diminish the features I value the least. You do the same thing, just not quite as explicitly.



Think of it this way - you think more similarly to a pig than you do to a cow. And you value people who think more similarly to you implicitly if you value family members more than you do strangers.

Of course, I don't really believe you, either. If someone served you a plate of human ribs, I imagine you would recoil and refuse to eat them.



Okay, then taboo "smart" since you see a value judgement on that and wish to be politically correct by saying that everyone has the same value. Say instead that pigs think more similarly to use than cows or trees or a rock (especially since the latter two don't "think" at all, and the former is debatable).



I view a bias as a mistake, and do my best to correct them.



That depends on how you value things. It's only a bias if you're unaware of it and allow it to influence your behavior in ways you would not intend if you were actually aware of it. You're aware that you value your family members more than you value strangers, and as such, that's no longer a "bias".



I certainly would agree with this. But I would prioritize which species should be improved first (because while it'd be nice to improve it for everything, realistically, you need to prioritize or nothing will be improved) based on intelligence (and you can replace this with "thinks more similarly to me" or whatever you want, though that's not quite as accurate as I'd prefer).



I have this strange desire to "be a good person". Could very well be a defect. Also, of note - "morals" is just a word - you can replace it with "ethics" or "how I think people ought to behave" or whatnot.



Morals and ethics are synonyms as I'm using it. It's just a word for "what you should do".



I'm really not sure. In my ideal world, nobody would sacrifice their lives for anything, because nobody would die. Since that's not the existing world, it's really rather hard for me to say.



Huh?

I dunno wtf you mean by "Hollywood version of the cave man" - I was referring to concepts from the field of evolutionary psychology, which is certainly grounded in the field of anthropology. The version you describe is also a straw man, since nobody here (or anywhere else, that I've seen) has been talking about anyone acting that way.



[Citation needed]

Ya know.. I almost never read your posts because they're 10 pages long.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Ya know.. I almost never read your posts because they're 10 pages long.

Here, you can have my leftover Ritalin pills. It will help you focus.

I stopped taking them awhile ago.

 

[posts from hell]

Here, you can have my leftover Ritalin pills. It will help you focus.

I stopped taking them awhile ago.

Thanks. I'll be sure to put them to good use.

 

[flip]

I said "any living thing" not "any creature." There is a difference.

You are assuming that animals are superior to plants. In your universe that may be a truth. In mine it is not.

This idea that something alive is superior to something else alive have a christian origin, that StSapphire obviously relates to, like most westerns, in spite of them calling themselves secular and scientific oriented.

Genesis 26:
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Plants aren't even mentioned.

 

[Berry]

Your bias is largely unconscious, partly because yours is the cultural standard. Mine is not.

.

In this case, I think it's more a difference in values, than a bias. We have different priors, which allow us to come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. Bias causes you to manipulate or selectively ignore data and evidence, rather than simply interpreting it differently.

You are cerebral. Some people are visceral. You trust your brain, others trust their guts.

I fully trust neither. I give all parts of me equal weight. My heart, my head, my gut, and any other part that wishes to speak up. I try not to make a decision until they are all in harmony, but sometimes there is no time for that.

The brain is a drunken monkey and there are times to tell it to STFU.

 

[Berry]

When I weed a garden I am aware I am destroying plants that have just as much right to be there as I do to be here. Yet I do it because the garden is an asset to me. When I rid the garden of insects I am aware I am murdering innocent creatures that intend me no harm. Yet I also recognize their existence will do me and my family harm.


.

These would be our different priors. It seems that for you, anything that is made of atoms and quarks should be valued equally, because it's all made of the same stuff. That is not the case for me. I try to recognize why it is that I instinctively value my family more than others (because they share more genes with me and this behavior promotes the replication of my genetic material, which I recognize via being able to more easily mentally model them than others), and from there, I have tried to extrapolate which features I personally value the most, and work to elevate those values and work to diminish the features I value the least. You do the same thing, just not quite as explicitly.

The difference here is you see everything as made up of the same physical stuff. You attempt to give value to things that have no real value of themselves. Physical things have no inherent value.

I see everything as being made up of the same spiritual nature as myself. I cannot exist as a physical being except that I am first conceived of as a spiritual being. A rock exists for the same reason, it first has a spiritual expression and then it can have a physical one.

It is a Native American Tribal thing, though not ALL tribes.

I was taught that if I need to eat and I happen upon a dear, and I kill that dear with a huge rock, I should thank the dear for feeding me and thank the rock for helping me.

True it is I don't always remember to do that, but I try to remember that I should.

 

[StSapphire]

Ya know.. I almost never read your posts because they're 10 pages long.

Haha, well I like responding to lots of things people say. But I don't like replying with 15 different posts, I try to keep it in one. Sorry. :P

This idea that something alive is superior to something else alive have a christian origin, that StSapphire obviously relates to, like most westerns, in spite of them calling themselves secular and scientific oriented.

Genesis 26:
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Plants aren't even mentioned.

I doubt there's anything I could do to convince you that you're wrong, so we'll just move on. Once you've rejected the words and explanations someone has given you, you can twist their words into meaning anything you want.

You are cerebral. Some people are visceral. You trust your brain, others trust their guts.

I fully trust neither. I give all parts of me equal weight. My heart, my head, my gut, and any other part that wishes to speak up. I try not to make a decision until they are all in harmony, but sometimes there is no time for that.

The brain is a drunken monkey and there are times to tell it to STFU.

Oh, I certainly don't trust my brain. It's full of a multitude of biases. So I train and practice with it to overcome its shortcomings, like a fat guy who wakes up at 6 AM to go run several miles.

The difference here is you see everything as made up of the same physical stuff. You attempt to give value to things that have no real value of themselves. Physical things have no inherent value.

Yep, because as best as I can tell, that's how reality is. I don't see any need to make up stories to give things ethereal "inherent" values. I'm a conscious, living, physical thing. If you cannot appreciate the merely real, then you're doomed to always be either deluded or disappointed.

I see everything as being made up of the same spiritual nature as myself. I cannot exist as a physical being except that I am first conceived of as a spiritual being. A rock exists for the same reason, it first has a spiritual expression and then it can have a physical one.

It is a Native American Tribal thing, though not ALL tribes.

I was taught that if I need to eat and I happen upon a dear, and I kill that dear with a huge rock, I should thank the dear for feeding me and thank the rock for helping me.

True it is I don't always remember to do that, but I try to remember that I should.

Ignoring the fact that I'd be shocked if you've ever killed a deer with a rock, treating everything as if it were spiritual seems to be the flip side of the same coin as viewing nothing as spiritual. The only difference is that you view personality and intentions and a whole host of human-like attributes into everything, while I'm skeptical that even humans essentially have them.

 

[jillio]

However a bit of study of anthropology will show you that no anthropologist (to my knowledge) ever subscribed to the Hollywood version of the cave man as one who first thought on seeing another human was to kill them.

In fact quite the opposite. When meeting another tribe of humans cave men were more apt to have a drunken orgy to celebrate.

But what the hell, cinema is cinema.

Where would Jane Fonda have been without stupid conflict?

A porn star.

Hey, Barbarella.

You are quite correct regarding your belief re: anthropologists. As well as your other statements.

 

[jillio]

You are cerebral. Some people are visceral. You trust your brain, others trust their guts.

I fully trust neither. I give all parts of me equal weight. My heart, my head, my gut, and any other part that wishes to speak up. I try not to make a decision until they are all in harmony, but sometimes there is no time for that.

The brain is a drunken monkey and there are times to tell it to STFU.

And that is the source of your wisdom. You are open to all incoming information, and give equal validity to the message it brings.

 

[jillio]

Haha, well I like responding to lots of things people say. But I don't like replying with 15 different posts, I try to keep it in one. Sorry. :P



I doubt there's anything I could do to convince you that you're wrong, so we'll just move on. Once you've rejected the words and explanations someone has given you, you can twist their words into meaning anything you want.



Oh, I certainly don't trust my brain. It's full of a multitude of biases. So I train and practice with it to overcome its shortcomings, like a fat guy who wakes up at 6 AM to go run several miles.



Yep, because as best as I can tell, that's how reality is. I don't see any need to make up stories to give things ethereal "inherent" values. I'm a conscious, living, physical thing. If you cannot appreciate the merely real, then you're doomed to always be either deluded or disappointed.



Ignoring the fact that I'd be shocked if you've ever killed a deer with a rock, treating everything as if it were spiritual seems to be the flip side of the same coin as viewing nothing as spiritual. The only difference is that you view personality and intentions and a whole host of human-like attributes into everything, while I'm skeptical that even humans essentially have them.

My,my. Such skepticism at such a young age.

 

[StSapphire]

My,my. Such skepticism at such a young age.

I'll take that as an extremely generous compliment. Thanks.

 

[flip]

I doubt there's anything I could do to convince you that you're wrong, so we'll just move on. Once you've rejected the words and explanations someone has given you, you can twist their words into meaning anything you want.

I doubt there's anything I could do to convince you that you're wrong, so we'll just move on. Once you've rejected the words and explanations someone has given you, you can twist their words into meaning anything you want.

 

[netrox]

I have a problem with this whole concept.

Prior to John Locke rule was pretty much the province of the Divine Right of the Monarchy. John Locke proposed the concept of majority rule.

John Stuart Mill came along and pointed out that the majority could be a far worse task master than the monarchy. He thus proposed the protection of the minority.

John Stuart Mill was not ignored when the constitution was written and his ideas have not been ignored by the U.S. government today.

To ignore such a minority is to sanctify the attitude that NO minority should have ANY rights if it is inconvenient for the "majority". This is totally against the basic principles our nation was founded upon.

What "rights" are being infringed if we add nutrients to food or water? Their right to be defective? Just askin'.

 

[Berry]

The thing is that we should look at the whole scale of economics and mortality.

In terms of mortality, if you add a substance to the public that may save 100,000 more lives a year yet may cause 1,000 premature deaths attributed to that substance, it's worth adding it.

For me, I will NOT consider what 1,000 will have to say because those 1,000 people obviously do not care about how 100,000 lives were saved. And you shouldn't.

As above so below.

What "rights" are being infringed if we add nutrients to food or water? Their right to be defective? Just askin'.

 

[Berry]

What "rights" are being infringed if we add nutrients to food or water? Their right to be defective? Just askin'.

What is defective or not defective is a matter of opinion.

As long as the exercise of my rights does not interfere with the rights of others I should have the right to be any thing I damn well please, whether you consider it defective or not.

Whether it is mental, emotional, or physical, is of no importance.

You actually say this on a forum that respects the rights of Deaf people to declare they are NOT defective and do not have to be "cured" of anything just because a bunch of hearing audists think they should be?