View Poll Results: should you feel sorry for somebody who doesn't exist ?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    1 14.29%
  • no

    6 85.71%
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 79 of 79

Thread: do being that are not sentient deserve moral treatment ?

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: do being that are not sentient deserve moral treatment ?

    Quote Originally Posted by NEUROSPORT View Post
    i have come to the conclusion that most people are not conscious most of the time.

    every day i feel less and less motivated to argue with people because i see that they are ultimately not capable of understanding anything.

    question is - should i feel sorry for or try to help people who as far as i am concerned do not intellectually exist ?

    i mean if you are attacked by a rabid dog - do you feel sorry for the dog ? do you argue with it ? or do you shoot it ?

    i mean there is a dfiference between makign a mistake, being incapacitated by drugs and/or alcohol and simply not having a brain.

    if you make a mistake i feel sorry for you. if you are drunk maybe ill catch up with you when you're in better shape. but if if you are just physically incapable of understanding ANYTHING, EVER, AT ALL ... how am i supposed to feel about a person like that ? this is most people mind you.
    lolz. I guessed this thread was going to be some pro or anti-abortion argument.

  2. #72
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: do being that are not sentient deserve moral treatment ?

    Quote Originally Posted by NEUROSPORT View Post
    right. i only studied physics since 5th grade in USSR and only have two engineering degrees. what do i know about technology.
    i never said that lowering the speed limit would not reduce energy demands. it's not my problem that you can't understand what i am saying.

    you used an example of a car designed before the oil crisis of the 70s to make it seem as if my statement was wrong. instead you could have tried to simply understand my point.

    after the oil crisis of the 70s fuel economy improved mostly because we simpy dropped our standards and started driving small, sh1tty cars with no power. then in the 90s cars started getting bigger and faster again. many cars like Camry and Accord have almolst doubled their power and gained hundreds of pounds of weight. Some cars like Infinity G sedan have more than doubled their power going from 140hp to more than 330hp. That power didn't come for free. I drove a 2009 G37x around brooklyn for a weekend and it went through an entire tank of premium gas in that time. By contrast in my father's 1995 Chrysler LHS ( the biggest Chrysler and one of the biggest sedans made in those times ) i was able to get all the way to Toronto, Canada on a single tank of gas back in the day.

    Of the people i know including myself and my parents the ones who drive brand new cars get fuel economy that is MUCH WORSE than ones who drive cars that are 10 years old. Yes these new cars are twice as powerful and much bigger - but that is preciesely the point.

    i know how virtually every single gas saving technology works. but fact of the matter is there isn't a single car out there right now that can deliver the driving experience i am after that is fuel efficient. Tesla roadster would be an exception but since i live in a city i have nowhere to plug it in.

    all the hybrids today are either slow ( civic, prius, camry ) or not very fuel efficient ( GS450h, LS600h ).

    turbodiesel technology that has been around since forever delivers fuel economy comparable to that of hybrids. if you want to save gas you still have to drive a small sh1tty car just like you did in the 80s.
    So many contradictions....so little time.....
    You have your panties in a wad and are ranting against everyone here. But YOU are the only sentient being, right?
    More like sociopath....

    You say you studied physics in Russia since 5th grade, but you know so little....Must be why Russia is a failing country.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  3. #73
    Professor
    OxymoronP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heart in Brooklyn, body South of Dixie
    Last Seen
    08-23-10 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,175

    Re: do being that are not sentient deserve moral treatment ?

    Other no such thing as universal morals.


    THE GREATEST FREEDOM IS THE FREEDOM TO OPPRESS OTHERS

  4. #74
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: do being that are not sentient deserve moral treatment ?

    This is actually a decent question, but better answered by the answer to another question.

    Why do sentient beings deserve moral treatment? Figure that one out and examine if the reason for why, if sentient beings deserve moral treatment, non-sentient do not.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Last Seen
    12-23-09 @ 05:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    616

    Re: do being that are not sentient deserve moral treatment ?

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    So many contradictions....so little time.....
    You have your panties in a wad and are ranting against everyone here. But YOU are the only sentient being, right?
    More like sociopath....

    You say you studied physics in Russia since 5th grade, but you know so little....Must be why Russia is a failing country.
    Russia is a failing country because people like me have left it.

    how about you actually confront my argument ?

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Last Seen
    12-23-09 @ 05:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    616

    Re: do being that are not sentient deserve moral treatment ?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    This is actually a decent question, but better answered by the answer to another question.

    Why do sentient beings deserve moral treatment? Figure that one out and examine if the reason for why, if sentient beings deserve moral treatment, non-sentient do not.
    right except it wasn't a question - it was a troll.

    we feel compassion for beings that we feel are "like" us. the reason for this has to do with evolutionary pressure. it just so happens that man is the most intelligent creature and we are men.

    when we explain to ourselsves why we don't care about chickens or cows going into our cheeseburger we use the excuse that they are not intellignet when the real reason is that they simply don't look like us.

    black people were slaves because they were black and we were not. i hope that is not too hard to understand.

    unfortunately you do look like me so i am forced to feel sorry for you and yet you are NOTHING like me. you are not more like me than a chicken is like you. yet you don't feel sorry for a chicken ( telling yourself that a chicken is stupid ) while you are to me intellectually all but chickens and yet i am forced to feel sorry for you and treat you as if you were more than a commodity when in fact you are less.

    this is what is unfair and what motivated my rant.
    Last edited by NEUROSPORT; 08-26-09 at 07:34 AM.

  7. #77
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: do being that are not sentient deserve moral treatment ?

    Quote Originally Posted by NEUROSPORT View Post
    right. i only studied physics since 5th grade in USSR and only have two engineering degrees. what do i know about technology.

    i never said that lowering the speed limit would not reduce energy demands. it's not my problem that you can't understand what i am saying.

    you used an example of a car designed before the oil crisis of the 70s to make it seem as if my statement was wrong. instead you could have tried to simply understand my point.

    after the oil crisis of the 70s fuel economy improved mostly because we simpy dropped our standards and started driving small, sh1tty cars with no power. then in the 90s cars started getting bigger and faster again. many cars like Camry and Accord have almolst doubled their power and gained hundreds of pounds of weight. Some cars like Infinity G sedan have more than doubled their power going from 140hp to more than 330hp. That power didn't come for free. I drove a 2009 G37x around brooklyn for a weekend and it went through an entire tank of premium gas in that time. By contrast in my father's 1995 Chrysler LHS ( the biggest Chrysler and one of the biggest sedans made in those times ) i was able to get all the way to Toronto, Canada on a single tank of gas back in the day.
    Of the people i know including myself and my parents the ones who drive brand new cars get fuel economy that is MUCH WORSE than ones who drive cars that are 10 years old. Yes these new cars are twice as powerful and much bigger - but that is preciesely the point.
    i know how virtually every single gas saving technology works. but fact of the matter is there isn't a single car out there right now that can deliver the driving experience i am after that is fuel efficient. Tesla roadster would be an exception but since i live in a city i have nowhere to plug it in.
    all the hybrids today are either slow ( civic, prius, camry ) or not very fuel efficient ( GS450h, LS600h ).

    turbodiesel technology that has been around since forever delivers fuel economy comparable to that of hybrids. if you want to save gas you still have to drive a small sh1tty car just like you did in the 80s.
    The little cars you speak of did not double in weight. Big cars were, and are, still available. Cars driven in town will get poor mileage compared to cars driven on freeways, everyone should know that.
    A Tesla can't be plugged in because you live in the city? They don't have electricity in parking garages?
    You make incorrect statements and expect us to take them as fact because YOU think they are true.

    Ford Crown Victoria cars get close to 30 mpg on the freeway, and they are a very big car. Before overdrive transmissions and more efficient fuel/air delivery (thanks to head design), the owners would feel lucky getting 20 mpg.
    A well tuned carburetor could easily get good mileage, but emissions would not be as clean as computer controlled fuel injection.
    Light trucks, like the chevy 1500 I have, got 10-12 mpg hiway mileage back in the 70's and early 80's. Now they get 20 mpg easily, and they weigh the same. Again, the overdrive transmission and computer controlled fuel injection play the major role in the improvements.
    You know so little, yet claim to be superior. In the OP, you are complaining about YOU....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  8. #78
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: do being that are not sentient deserve moral treatment ?

    Quote Originally Posted by NEUROSPORT View Post
    that's what you've been brainwashed to believe.

    in fact nobody has the right to tell me how to live.


    USA was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

    Republic vs. Democracy
    As a child, your parents told you how to live, and it appears they didn't do a very good job.
    We are all part of society and SHOULD WANT to live by its best rules, the ones that teach us how to be a community.
    Questions, do you feel oppressed by the rules?
    What rules bother you the most?
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  9. #79
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: do being that are not sentient deserve moral treatment ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    People who cannot capitalize properly, nor handle plural forms of words should not exist.
    English is not his native language...
    and he hasn't learned enough English yet to be "sentient"....
    I suppose we should feel sorry for him.
    Last edited by UtahBill; 08-26-09 at 11:20 AM.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •