Sayonara

Considering your post, you may also find this thread interesting: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2941

Calling something miraculous does not make it miraculous.

Not as much resonance as "Logic is the beginning of wisdom Valeris; not its end."

I think you may refer to Freakchild: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/24/1234250&tid=191&tid=14

Yes. Children under 16 should not attempt to gain significant muscle mass.

You can expect to deviate consistently if you respond to Mart's tangential questions.

If you've built a Dyson sphere, there is no Earth. The inner surface of the sphere occupies a shell whose circumference is described by the average orbit of the planet the sphere is replacing.

This thread is a farce.

Actually, my proposal was that his life should be placed at the same level as anybody else's. If you want to respond to this thread, maybe you could suspend your moral outrage for long enough to actually read it first. Captain Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Not the most sound basis for defining foreign policy really, is it?

No. And if by papers you mean newspapers, they're not really the best source.

No it wouldn't.

For the reasons already stated, you cannot guarantee that. Not even close.

I think it would be immensely helpful at this juncture for me to clarify my position: I am not making the argument that cows are not conscious. I am simply asking that if the claim is made that they are, then objective evidence is shown to allow that claim to be useful to the discussion. Regarding my earlier question, "how is it unethical to kill a cow?" (which was actually directed at Cap'n Refsmmat, but he seems to be replying using the distinctive strategy of not replying), it may be helpful to use some kind of base level. To that end we might define why murder is unethical, since this seems to be fairly universally-agreed upon.

No. DS9, and all of the Cardassian and Starfleet vessels, used artificial gravity generated by a grid of devices beneath the deck plating. And it wasn't miles in diameter; just over a kilometre if memory serves.

Let's not leave out "..but there's no reason why they should, and no reason why they ought to be made to feel that they should".

PM me your email address.

Surprise me. And that's all very well, but it doesn't mean we should assume that state of affairs because it suits argument number 34567-a to do so. Despite the fact that pigs are not cows, I will respond to this to say that ever-more sophisticated examples of individual->group behaviour are not evidence of self-conscious thought or, if you prefer, recognition of self. We still don't really understand what consciousness is in humans, much less how to spot it in other species. Monkeys, pigs and dolphins are all likely candidates for being self-aware in some fashion (or, at least, they are on that road). However they have no bearing on my original question. Assuming that cows have some random characteristic (in this case intelligence, which is not necessarily a, or even the only, prerequisite for conscious thought) and that therefore they must be self-aware is the same logical folly I asked you to back up earlier. You're just repeating yourself. OK, let's recap: Me: Why is it unethical to kill a cow? You: It causes suffering. Me: They don't necessarily suffer. You: Ah, well you see, then it's still unethical. "Seem to" doesn't cut it. Again, all you're doing is highlighting that you think they are reacting in a conscious fashion. Simple Pavlovian conditioning. The pigs don't know one of them is going to die; what they are reacting to is the pre-stimulus that indicates someone is going to make a cracking great boom next to their head, which most animals can do without during meals. The pigs' reduced reaction and eventual apathy towards Syntax was an example of exactly the same process. You seem to believe that recognition of other sources of information (i.e. other organisms) requires recognition of self. I contend that this is not necessarily so, and to take one to be an indication of the existence of the other is a non sequitur. Again, what "seems" right to you is not enough for you to claim it as fact for the purposes of constructing an argument about anything other than how things seem to you. Telling people how it is not right to do such-and-such a thing requires more objectivity, or it simply is not credible. I really don't see why you would label this as "complex" behaviour, when it's fairly rudimentary and rife throughout the kingdom. There's that "seems to be conscious" again; based on what? Biology is an inherently reductionist system - it will not prescribe a highly complex enactor for a relatively simple process. In other words, why would conscious thought evolve in cows, but in such a way that it is rarely expressed to the extent that we might be able to detect it, just so that a cow can contemplate (or ruminate, if you're into puns) the future of its calve while it licks mud off her face? Because (a) that is based on speculation, and (b) association of a consistent stimulus with its source is not self-awareness. Maybe they do imagine the existence and experiences of other animals - the fact is that we don't know, and to base an argument on speculation is to build a house of cards. I presented that description as the definition of 'ethical', and that is exactly what it is. For you to ascribe that definition to me and label it "naive" is fairly childish, particularly where you present no superior definition. Granted the subject of ethics can be complex (particularly in practical application), but when one asks "how is it unethical to kill a cow?", if it is so clearly unethical one might reasonably expect a straight answer within one post. Quite. That was the point I was making in my post. If you follow it, you will see that I am pointing out the absurdity of so-called "ethical arguments" outside an objective framework. No, you sailed right past the point. The point I was making is that an appeal to common practice will not answer the question (for either of us). Hence the closing line of my post: "And so we find ourselves still awaiting an answer to my earlier question." You have stated that ethics are objective facts. If this is the case, and you believe killing a cow to be unethical, there must therefore be an objective fact to support that position.

'Cows being nervous' is not that unusual. If there's a link between them recognising the function of an abbatoir, and fearing for their own lives, the onus is on you to show it. Correlation is not causality.

Hence 'self-actuated' is in there

Hey, come up with your own system of persecution. Don't pervert mine.

The double-plus super free bonus is that it's Darwinistic selection in action. They'll hate that.

How about if anyone who wants to criticise evolution has to pass an exam to see how well they understand it. If they fail, then they get tied up with iron chains and thrown into the ocean. Just to be fair, the same can be done for anyone who wants to criticise evolution. Golly gosh; I wonder who'll last longer?

Are the emails all the same? If so, they are probably automated responses to mail passing through their server. There are three likely explanations: 1) It's a scam of some sort (not that likely) 2) Someone is sending mails, and they are spoofing your address as the sender (not likely either - a mail server admin would see the headers were faked) 3) You are infected with a worm that is mailing out copies of itself. Run a complete virus sweep with an up-to-date client.