the untruths and ignorance behind specism.

[Intangible]

Catholicism Wow

 

http://www.linklog.com/media/BuddyChrist.jpg'>

[Sanctus Idioticus]

And the angel of the lord came unto me,

snatching me up from my place of slumber.

 

And took me on high,

and higher still

until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.

 

And he brought me into a vast farmlands

of our own midwest.

And as we descended,

cries of impending doom rose from the soil.

 

One thousand,

nay a million voices full of fear.

 

And terror possesed me then.

 

And I begged,

"Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"

 

And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."

 

And I sprang from my slumber

drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers

and roared,

 

"Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah?

 

Thank you Jesus.

[Cracked Ass]

1. Props to raver slut for the Toolism.

2. Seeking: Short answer, yes.

3. Does higher intelligence come with responsibility: Short answer, no.

The long answer ties all three together (if I'm good...maybe I'll make a mess of it).

First of all, let me reiterate my basic belief that EVERYTHING we see is part of "nature", including all complex human behavior. That includes the evolution of individuals into societies. The societies humans naturally evolved into do not agree on the sanctity of animal life, or whether biodiversity should be preserved, so the default setting is for us to routinely wipe out other species out of clumsiness, uncaring, or even on purpose (for example, the passenger pigeon, which was hunted to extinction, solely for sport, in the early 1900s). Again, this is NATURAL for humans to do. If it turns out that pro-biodiversity arguments are true, then that proves my next point: humans may be smarter than other animals, but it's all relative, and we're still pretty dumb. (A REALLY smart race could overcome belligerence, greed, and wastefulness, and skillfully preserve biodiversity, conserve resources, and prepare the way for mass space travel - the last one in particular, because we already know the earth will be fried to a cinder by the expanding sun in a couple billion years, and whatever humans have evolved into by then will need a new home, if we're not extinct.)

Responsibility? We all can't agree on our goals, so how can humans collectively discharge any "responsibility" that comes with higher intelligence (assuming we could identify it)? If intelligence continues to climb with evolution, then we need another couple of hundred thousand years, maybe millions, to evolve into that smarter race I just mentioned. It is NOT ENOUGH for a few smart specimens to speak out about our responsibilities - essentially, anyone preaching biodiversity and/or veganism or, for that matter, any noble-sounding philosophical view, is EARLY. A society of idiot humans with a few brighter bulbs mixed in, which still manages to elect George Bush to lead the way, is insufficiently evolved to be a responsible custodian of the earth - if that is even a noble goal (see the "fried to a cinder" comment above). I'm not going to live a hundred years, never mind a hundred thousand, so I'll never see the enlightened era we might reach with enough evolution. With that perspective, I don't consider my own life to be particularly important, much less a cow or chicken I fancy on my dinner plate.

That said, there is hope. Anyone who believes in biodiversity, veganism, or responsibility to the earth should continue to preach it. Your beliefs, like everything else, are NATURAL, so I can't say they have no validity; I just feel it's too early in human evolution to try and assume these responsibilities on a scattered individual basis. (Yes, you may argue I'm slacking on the "think globally, act locally" slogan - guilty as charged, but hey, it's natural.)

Props to invalid for asking the interesting question: does higher intelligence come with responsibility? Anyone else want to give their take?

[Kr430n5_666]

http://www.necrophagia.com/images/immortalpure.jpg'>http://www.necrophagia.com/images/immortalpure.jpg'>

 

scary

[Guest SPLINTER]

well i think that if i think about this i will come up with something good to say but i just finished watching Kung Pow:Enter the Fist. and if i may say i am to facinated to think right now.

[Cracked Ass]

OK, I didn't type all that to be buried under "spongebob squarepants", so...bump

[Xeroshoes]

Originally posted by SPLINTER

well i think that if i think about this i will come up with something good to say but i just finished watching Kung Pow:Enter the Fist. and if i may say i am to facinated to think right now.

 

Yeah, that movie shouldn't have been made...

 

Cracked seems on point, I can't argue against what he's said...

[Guest SPLINTER]

^^ what the fuck are you talking about. it was great it shows how humans can create whole movies with only about 10 actors and have about 100 people in the film. it was great and that cow was sure intelligent so may be we can kick its ass since its smart enough to do matrix shit.

[I Luv Roo]

Originally posted by Cracked Ass

1. Props to raver slut for the Toolism.

2. Seeking: Short answer, yes.

3. Does higher intelligence come with responsibility: Short answer, no.

The long answer ties all three together (if I'm good...maybe I'll make a mess of it).

First of all, let me reiterate my basic belief that EVERYTHING we see is part of "nature", including all complex human behavior. That includes the evolution of individuals into societies. The societies humans naturally evolved into do not agree on the sanctity of animal life, or whether biodiversity should be preserved, so the default setting is for us to routinely wipe out other species out of clumsiness, uncaring, or even on purpose (for example, the passenger pigeon, which was hunted to extinction, solely for sport, in the early 1900s). Again, this is NATURAL for humans to do. If it turns out that pro-biodiversity arguments are true, then that proves my next point: humans may be smarter than other animals, but it's all relative, and we're still pretty dumb. (A REALLY smart race could overcome belligerence, greed, and wastefulness, and skillfully preserve biodiversity, conserve resources, and prepare the way for mass space travel - the last one in particular, because we already know the earth will be fried to a cinder by the expanding sun in a couple billion years, and whatever humans have evolved into by then will need a new home, if we're not extinct.)

Responsibility? We all can't agree on our goals, so how can humans collectively discharge any "responsibility" that comes with higher intelligence (assuming we could identify it)? If intelligence continues to climb with evolution, then we need another couple of hundred thousand years, maybe millions, to evolve into that smarter race I just mentioned. It is NOT ENOUGH for a few smart specimens to speak out about our responsibilities - essentially, anyone preaching biodiversity and/or veganism or, for that matter, any noble-sounding philosophical view, is EARLY. A society of idiot humans with a few brighter bulbs mixed in, which still manages to elect George Bush to lead the way, is insufficiently evolved to be a responsible custodian of the earth - if that is even a noble goal (see the "fried to a cinder" comment above). I'm not going to live a hundred years, never mind a hundred thousand, so I'll never see the enlightened era we might reach with enough evolution. With that perspective, I don't consider my own life to be particularly important, much less a cow or chicken I fancy on my dinner plate.

That said, there is hope. Anyone who believes in biodiversity, veganism, or responsibility to the earth should continue to preach it. Your beliefs, like everything else, are NATURAL, so I can't say they have no validity; I just feel it's too early in human evolution to try and assume these responsibilities on a scattered individual basis. (Yes, you may argue I'm slacking on the "think globally, act locally" slogan - guilty as charged, but hey, it's natural.)

Props to invalid for asking the interesting question: does higher intelligence come with responsibility? Anyone else want to give their take?

 

Yes. That you are even smart enough to make those observations and evalutations on the world in which you live, you have a responsibility to do your part to maintain a balance, and to treat all living creatures as equals. Or at least try the best you can.

 

I can't understand how or why certain cultures tend to ravage their resources and surroundings, and others have the insight to live in balance - maybe that IS part of nature and the universe's larger scheme.

 

Everything is God's will, or 'nature', but karma is also god's will, and when you disrespectfully LET things take their toll, knowing full well it is not healthy or safe, you will have your own karma to deal with. (sorry about the preachy-ness, it's just how I believe it to be).

[toyeattoywar]

certain teachers of thought have proposed that karma is the reactions to your actions and nothing more. in a sense i definately support that theory whole heartedly but at the same time i look at what people call "reality" and attempt to see it as a multi-fascited (sp?) experience in a sense. for example, one can think that the system of christianity is the only "reality" that exists and go home and pray to jesus and their faith in jesus causes miraculous acts. other people put all of their faith in the universal spirit aligned more with some of the 700 or so tribes of the indiginous peoples of north america that were almost wiped out completely and their faith in the universal spirit causes miraculous acts. so if both of these "realities" are our only options and both are absolute then why are both proving to be correct? maybe its just the persons faith in the system and not the system itself. as its been said before "realities what you make of it."

as to the question does higher intelligence come with responsibility i dont think its as much a question of higher intelligence i think that it is more of a common sense kind of a thing. for example, i believe it is more towards chiapas mexico; alot of the forrests have been removed. the mayans have lived on these lands for thousands of years and one day starbucks bought them and said im sorry but you cant live here anymore. on the upside we will be using this land to grow coffee beans so you can sow our fields for us in hopes to make some money and live. starbucks buys their coffee for .25 cents a pound and most of the mayan community is living in cardboard boxes as a result of the forrests being torn down. well they cannot afford homes because starbucks is paying .25 which forces the mayans to be paid far less than minimum wage and they can afford nothing more than a box. now the logical thing in my opinion would be to say okay, if you insist on tearing down the land that they have been living on you can pay them 1.25 a pound and they can at least afford to be paid minimum wage so thay might be able to afford a home as opposed to a cardboard box.

i think it is our responsibility to attempt to stop the processes that are going on in the world, like the example that i gave above if one can recognize that human life means more than profits (all you have to do is ask for fair trade coffee beans the next time you go, but i recommend not spending your money there at all).

that life in general is more valuable than money and our luxuries. i dont think it is a matter of intelligence alone though, i think that it can be common sense depending on the way a person thinks or compassion for living beings depending on the way a person sees the world.

[Guest SPLINTER]

the question is are me the only species in the world the performs oral sex? find the answer to this and yu have discovered the key to the universe, mainly the clitoris but yeah oral sex is special.

[Pistol]

I don't know splinter I seen dogs kinda go overboard while checking for fleas.

 

Personally I don't see how having a higher intelligence requires us to certain responsibilities. Sure maybe in a perfect world , perhaps morally but. Who really makes those morals? Depends on the culture and society you live in.

 

Althought I am not a strong follower of Zen nor do I make claims that I completely understand (overstand for seeking) it. I have had conversations and discussions with (damn i can't remember the title used, not a minister but you know) about good and evil positive and negative in the world even sin. They have a very cool way of looking at things. They have the idea that all things of both positive and negative energy. Such as killing a cow for food or even recreational hunting. Sure you killing an an animal but at the same time you are getting nutrition etc.

 

I'm not to into the sikhism idea of the catagories of living things.

I can't remember but humans are number 1. insects are second from the bottom. and plants are the very bottom.

 

i need sleep.

[Guest krie]

cool

[I Luv Roo]

And if someone is aware enough to know that not all species on this planet are treated with dignity and respect - but chooses to sit back and let "nature" take its toll: That to me, is worse than mereley being blinded by greed for material possessions and power.

Choosing that path will cause enough inner strife and turmoil that this in all essence is Karma, or Hell, or whatever you want to call it.

 

Just wait till "nature" takes its toll on you - you'll be sitting there wondering "why me?"... "what did I ever do to deserve THIS?"

[I Luv Roo]

Originally posted by Pistol

I don't know splinter I seen dogs kinda go overboard while checking for fleas.

 

Personally I don't see how having a higher intelligence requires us to certain responsibilities. Sure maybe in a perfect world , perhaps morally but. Who really makes those morals? Depends on the culture and society you live in.

 

Althought I am not a strong follower of Zen nor do I make claims that I completely understand (overstand for seeking) it. I have had conversations and discussions with (damn i can't remember the title used, not a minister but you know) about good and evil positive and negative in the world even sin. They have a very cool way of looking at things. They have the idea that all things of both positive and negative energy. Such as killing a cow for food or even recreational hunting. Sure you killing an an animal but at the same time you are getting nutrition etc.

 

I'm not to into the sikhism idea of the catagories of living things.

I can't remember but humans are number 1. insects are second from the bottom. and plants are the very bottom.

 

i need sleep.

 

Pistol, I was raised a Sikh, and never have I read anything like that in any sikh scriptures or teachings, nor was I taught that EVER. Guru Nanak taught to love all creatures, all living things, every molecule of this universe is God: "There is but one God, Truth is His Name" - this the very first line out of his first prose ever written...

 

May I ask where you got your information?

[Pistol]

From discussion and a book I've read. Can't remember where it is maybe I can find it. There was a legend that the founder would take a fan/broom and sweep the floor before he stepped to avoid crushing and killing any living creatures.

[Pistol]

Originally posted by I Luv Roo

 

Pistol, I was raised a Sikh, and never have I read anything like that in any sikh scriptures or teachings. May I ask where you got this information?

 

Your previous religious teaching might be one of the reasons why you hold those beliefs whether you still practice or even agree with it still.

Is seeking moral duty not the first level for sikhs?

[I Luv Roo]

I would be happy to talk about sikhism with you. Many people do not have access to the actual history. The religion is big in India, but small in the rest of the world, therefore, gets a bit skewed...

[I Luv Roo]

Originally posted by Pistol

 

Your previous religious teaching might be one of the reasons why you hold those beliefs whether you still practice or even agree with it still.

Is seeking moral duty not the first level for sikhs?

 

Well, I guess it is - it seems like it would be for any religion. But Sikhism was founded on very 'righteous terms'. Then continued on for the next 2 or 3 centuries fighting oppression through the era of the Moghul invasion - thus built somewhat of a militancy and religious doctrine such as hair and dress.

 

Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism didn't sweep the ground before him - you are thinking of the Jains, a sect of Buddhism (and Hinduism) in India. They were founded centuries before Sikhism. (if I have my history correct)

He travelled by foot throughout India and China spreading humility and compassion, and rejected all class systems.

[Pistol]

thanks roo.

 

the sikhs themselves had quite a struggle too if i remeber correctly. having being surrounded by thousands of Hindu's and Muslims.

[I Luv Roo]

Hey, most organized religions have their bullshit - but I am pretty grateful for being brought up with the belief system of the Sikhs. It's a religion worth studying if nothing else. ask me anything and I can try to answer it for you.

[Cracked Ass]

Originally posted by I Luv Roo

And if someone is aware enough to know that not all species on this planet are treated with dignity and respect - but chooses to sit back and let "nature" take its toll: That to me, is worse than merely being blinded by greed for material possessions and power.

Choosing that path will cause enough inner strife and turmoil that this in all essence is Karma, or Hell, or whatever you want to call it.

 

Just wait till "nature" takes its toll on you - you'll be sitting there wondering "why me?"... "what did I ever do to deserve THIS?"

 

This comes back to a simple religious argument. You are definitely a specist: you hold humans to a higher behavioral/moral standard than other species. A great white shark does not treat a grouper with dignity or respect: it eats it. A pitcher plant does not respect the ant that falls into its booby-trapped body: it slowly digests it, while its waxy walls prevent the ant from getting enough traction to climb out. There is no dignity or respect, only life and death, annihilation and consumption which lend the annihilator nutrition and strength. I consider my chopping up and eating a head of lettuce to be a violent act. But I'm OK with it, because I accept violence as a part of nature. I accept the inevitable fact of my death, possibly by violence. You won't hear me whining those naive questions you mentioned - when I face my death, I'll either fight, or shrug, depending on how certain it looks.

This all sounds cold and hard, but there's a bright side to my outlook, which I'll reveal if people are still interested in this thread.

[toyeattoywar]

is that the mysterious side of cracked ass, the brighter side of the dark side of the moon? im just kidding man. i agree with what you are saying about death being inevitable and the always standing possibility that it may be violent circumstance. i dont know man, ive seen threads survive with only two people before what do you think? im pretty sure theres more out there that are interested though.

[I Luv Roo]

Originally posted by Cracked Ass

 

This comes back to a simple religious argument. You are definitely a specist: you hold humans to a higher behavioral/moral standard than other species. A great white shark does not treat a grouper with dignity or respect: it eats it. A pitcher plant does not respect the ant that falls into its booby-trapped body: it slowly digests it, while its waxy walls prevent the ant from getting enough traction to climb out. There is no dignity or respect, only life and death, annihilation and consumption which lend the annihilator nutrition and strength. I consider my chopping up and eating a head of lettuce to be a violent act. But I'm OK with it, because I accept violence as a part of nature. I accept the inevitable fact of my death, possibly by violence. You won't hear me whining those naive questions you mentioned - when I face my death, I'll either fight, or shrug, depending on how certain it looks.

This all sounds cold and hard, but there's a bright side to my outlook, which I'll reveal if people are still interested in this thread.

 

So I'd like to hear your bright side.

Your view so far is primordial, which is not a 'negative' thing, just only using one aspect of your human consciousness. What I am saying is that if you have this ability to pick and choose how you view the world, and you choose to only see it one way, it may not be 'specist', but may certainly not be the healthiest for you or the planet.

It IS important to understand that anything you kill to eat had a life - plant OR animal. It is important to pay it respect in whatever way you choose. Respect it by understanding the cycle of life and the entire universe as a whole, that everything has a generation, a life, and everything has destruction.

When it all comes down to it everything you do is 'specist'... even those people who preach against specism. The word itself is pretty far-fetched.

 

Would I sacrifice my life to save my cat? Probably not. Would I sacrifice my life to save my child? Yes. I guess I AM a specist after all. Heck, the fact that is is MY cat make me a goddamn evil specist!

[Cracked Ass]

Originally posted by I Luv Roo

 

Your view so far is primordial, which is not a 'negative' thing, just only using one aspect of your human consciousness. What I am saying is that if you have this ability to pick and choose how you view the world, and you choose to only see it one way, it may not be 'specist', but may certainly not be the healthiest for you or the planet.

 

I have used EVERY aspect of my human consciousness - powers of observation, intuition, and intelligence - to arrive at my current views. I don't pick and choose how to see the world. I rely on observation, intuition and intellect, and let them show me what's there. What I DON'T do is try to fill in the blanks with contrived spirituality or any kind of religious concepts. I believe a lot of religions were created out of an insecurity about uncertainty, because most people can't stand to live without those blanks filled in. I don't have that problem. I'll let science fill in the blanks at its slow pace. I don't need a deity for a security blanket.

 

It IS important to understand that anything you kill to eat had a life - plant OR animal. It is important to pay it respect in whatever way you choose. Respect it by understanding the cycle of life and the entire universe as a whole, that everything has a generation, a life, and everything has destruction.

 

This is all your invention, or your belief invented by some religion. Why is this important? Who said so?

As for understanding the cycle of life, I believe I do! I described some of it above, the sharks and pitcher plants and whatnot. "Respect" doesn't really come up - except to say that I respect the power of the shark to cut me in two, and thusly avoid swimming in shark-infested waters.

As Tool says, "this is necessary...life feeds on life". I continue to play my natural role in the food chain.

 

The "bright side" I spoke of is how I look at life knowing what I know. My attitudes thus far may come off as cold, cynical, Darwinist, and just plain dour. It's not the whole picture. I believe that realism is the first step toward happiness: you must understand how shit works in the real world, know and accept the worst-case scenario. Once you've accepted your approaching death, and the fact that violence may befall at any time, then you can go out there and enjoy life to the fullest. When your time comes, you can smile and say "it was a great ride". I like life - it's fun, interesting, strange. I'm glad I had an incarnation.

This translates into many differences between me and a great many people I've met. I'm not easily surprised. People die in accidents, tragedies, terrorist acts, and everyone's all shocked, saying "How could this happen to such good people?" or "Who could do such a thing?" They seem uneducated in the dangers of fellowman and nature, they expect a long and healthy life. I assume nothing, and I know the risks. That's why I live for the moment, and use my brain to avoid situations likely to put an end to my moments. I've strung together bunches of great moments this way. This is also the reason I avoid working for other humans as much as possible - it causes me the worst misery I've known, and I don't want to waste precious moments on drudgery.

 

As for this whole "specist" thing, I don't really care to pin the term on anyone in particular. You're right, it is pretty far-fetched. It was really just a good springboard to some interesting debate.

[I Luv Roo]

Originally posted by Cracked Ass

. I don't pick and choose how to see the world. I rely on observation, intuition and intellect, and let them show me what's there.

 

.

 

You say that how you view the world is intuitive (along with observation and intellect). This intuitive aspect is coming from the uncertain that you are so ready to dismiss: eg, "how do you REALLY know?" - "because I FEEL it, that's how". Your intuition is your awareness, that voice that answers your mind's uncertainty.

 

I think organized religion especially comes from fear of the uncertain. Religion is not intuitive, it's didactic, used to govern and control. Some of the stuff I was brought up with I take, but I don't let it control everything I do. But I'm not gonna be so fanatic as to say I won't accept any of it, or follow all of it. I take everything in moderation, and I know that when my time comes, even if its the next secon or a hundred years from now - that my life was good, but no more precious than anyone else.