Ten oz

If homo sapiens and Neanderthals had different types on consciousness would they in turn have different ethics?

Have ethics existed throughout history? Do ethics exist in the absence of consciousness?

It does to me but getting into it would be off topic. On topic it is my opinion that many people believe, both religiously and philosophically, that modern human consciousness represents something mysterious and unique which has never existed before. I do not advocate that view and think a another type of human would expand debates about what consciousness is.

Lost in all of this is the ever lowering bar for U.S. policy. Trump and his supporters, conservatives in general, have created a huge vacuum in policy where only Trump's daily infamy value matters. Two years ago merely preventing further nuclear testing in North Korea wasn't a bench mark for U.S. policy success. It was the absolute minimum we expected and anything less was reason for intense criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. The difficult questions U.S. policy makers chewed on surrounded what to do about Kim Jung-un himself because he is a tyrannical leader killing his own people. Additional concerns were China's growing influence and ability to leverage NK distraction from their presence in the South China Sea (Conservatives once gave 2 sh!ts about that). The hyper focus of Trump for on camera issues, whatever pundits are getting ratings talking about, is detriment to U.S. foreign policy overall as we have taken our eyes off of many things: Crimea, Yemen, Assad, South China Sea, and etc.

This question doesn't interest me as I do not conflate the two.

After further consideration I find the question fascinating in the context of both Religion and Philosophy. In religion, particularly Arbrahamic ones, humans are treated as something special and individually unique from other animals created by a supreme entity. In philosophy many people, not all, often constraint consciousness to being a uniquely human experience. It would be interesting to see how the existence of other humans would impact those ideas of thought.

Not all humans with Neanderthal DNA carry the same genes. It is believed at least 20% of the Neanderthal genome exists today. While 1-3% is the common today Otzi the ice man (5,000 old) had double that amount. Go back 10,000 years and the percentage must have been even greater still. Neanderthals are part of the modern human story. Because of this I can't see any rational reason why Neanderthals would be considered separate. They were interbred with us (homo sapiens) and would surely do so today if around. Same goes for Denisovans.

Do you consider Neanderthals to be extinct? As OldChemE posted they are 2.6% neanderthal. Here in the U.S. recently as the 1980's such a percentage of African American would have bee enough for one to legally be classified as African American in Southern States. Linked below is an article covering an actual 1984 court proceeding.

Beats me?

Which is why I referred legal standards of countries throughout the world. Considering the presence of their genes in European and Asian populations I suspect populations with those ancestries would not treat Neanderthals like something less than human. Lets not forget that only within the last couple decades was it even conformed Neanderthals intermixed with Homo Sapiens. The revelation that hundred of millions alive today carry their genes was not one which has been met with horror or discrimination. I don't even view Neanderthals as entirely extinct considering they are part of the current gene pool.

Not sure what you mean. Currently, to my knowledge, there are not any ethical dilemma's any where based on Neanderthal genes. The point of my initial post was that Neanderthals were human and that all ethical standards attributed to humans should apply.

Within the legal systems of each individuals country dichotomy based on genetics.

All modern humans with European and Asian ancestry have Neanderthals in their family trees. Hundreds of millions of people alive today have genes passed down by Neanderthals.

Integrity doesn't exist in the modern Republican party. Loyalty among themselves reigns supreme. They serve themselves and not the nation. Trump encapsulated the attitude when he bragged that not paying taxes made him smart. It is why his supporters are not humbled by the fact he received 3 million less votes. Winners win. Ethics, truth, equality, and etc be damned. It is about their team and winning. No one pures champagne on themselves to celebrate fair play and ethical results. Conservatives despise participation awards. Celebration is for winners. Trump's supporters find joy in the fact that he keeps winning, keeps getting away with everything. To them there are no contradictions or double standards are play. There is simply winning and losing and those who complain do so because they are losing. Playground rules.

I think everything most conservatives (voters not the suits) say is empty. Who calls the shots is all that matters. They believe as a matter of ethnicity that it is their place to lead. They believe this is their country. Some of the deepest red states are also some of the poorest yet they stubbornly will not vote for change. They do not care about outcomes. They keep voting the same way despite negative outcomes. What matters is deeply rooted concepts of ones place in the world. Men must be the head of households, their god is the only god and all other gods are a blight against HIM, Anglo Europeans are inherently superior (but is a nice way) to all others, and etc. The White House was never meant to have a minorities and women calling the shots. The economy grew under Obama and millions of people got healthcare. Many conservatives saw improvements in their lives from Obama's policies yet still hate everything he stood for because it simply wasn't his place to be President.

Interesting the way it jumps from Bush to Trump. Obama's tenure was the possibly the most scandal free one the U.S. has seen yet millions of those who claim to care about the constitution and rule of law still opposed Obama. Conservatism in 2018 is purely about who welds control and not what they do with it. Nothing Mueller could find would ever be enough to cause Trump to loose his base of support. After numerous public denials regarding paying off a porn star the truth was finally revealed, proving Trump a liar again, and the response has been a soft uptick in his approval numbers. From climate change to keeping the govt out of medicare (huh?) the truth simple doesn't matter in most political discussions.

What comes to my mind is numerous expletives.

Even when listing every excuse he can think of the Texas Lt. Gov. refuses that guns themselves might part part of the problem.

The association between BMI and health risks isn't anymore telling then age, genetics, and lifestyle are. BMI is just a superficial way to guess at what is going on with ones diet and lifestyle. Provided one has a good diet, active lifestyle (relative to age), and feels healthy their BMI probably isn't important. That said it has been my experience that people simply are not honest with themselves about their diets and activity levels or are totally ignorant of them. In such cases a generic standard (BMI) is useful in creating a standard for those otherwise have known. Where I work we actually get weighed in a couple times a year at a minimum. As a collateral responsibility I work with people who miss their weight. In my experience the overwhelming majority of people who are over their BMI are so because they are fat. In 12yrs of working with those who weighed in over I have never seen where someone simply had too much muscle. I think people use the too much muscle excuse to deny the simply truth that they are fat. When Arnold Schwarzenegger won his first Mr. O he measured 186 cm (6'1) tall at 107kg (236lbs) in weight. Admittedly he was also using steroids. Yet I have known many men over the years heavy as or heavier than 107kg who are no taller than 186cm who insist it is all muscle which would mean they are more muscular than a competition ready Arnold Schwarzenegger cycling steroids. While it is true some athletes pack on weight for their sport it is also true that most are fat. Athletic skill positions seldom ever require artificial weight. It is generally the the known skill position where one benefits from size and in those non-skill positions the sizes typically includes lots and lots of fat.

Is anything absolutely real.

I guess if you were asking about free will it would change my answer.

Considering that we can't agree on the past and have only sporadic control over the present I think the answer is no. Of course context is everything and the OP provides none. I assume the question is referring to humanity having positive control over its own fate?

Obviously the U.S. needs to tackle gun control as whole. Accomplishing that is a political problem which will require political solutions. Campuses are individual facilities which have various safety procedures in place to tackle everything from earthquakes to fires. More kids are being shot to death at school than blown up yet campus security all over the country have guidelines in place to deal with bomb threats. While gun control is a political issue with political answers Campus security is a security issue and can be tackled as such without relying on politics. That is where I see the distinction or as you asked makes schools "special". For example the building I work in is card access. One must have the proper authorization to access various areas and the whole building can be locked down electronically. That is one type of physical security. Installing it didn't require campaigns, bumper stickers, govt lobbyists, political courage, winning elections, holding a political majority, or etc, etc,etc. Security of campuses like security of any facility doesn't have to be tied to national political policy. It would be awesome to address both but in lieu of the political side doing nothing security directors for campuses around the country should tackle the issue same as they tackle what to do about other emergent issues.

Arming Teachers isn't the answer. I think everyone in this thread agrees on that. However no one has really presented any clear ideas for what the answer might be. While rare in relation to the number of schools in the U.S. campus shooting are a real concern which continue to happen.

I boxed as teen and continue to train people as an adult. I primarily train the basics to friends and co-workers looking to learn for the sake of fun and exercise but did train a guy a couple years ago for a Police/Federal Officer tournament he went on to win. I was good, am still good, never pursued it professionally because it wasn't the sort of life I wanted. Boxing isn't like other pro sports where there is a commission and unions looking out for athletes. In boxing everyone is on their own working with promoters to get fighters made. Too much of a hustle. I saw too talented athletes in the amateurs dedicate years and have hundreds of fights just to end up no where.