botexpert

Yes, because foods can easily be ranked by their scientifically measured healthiness.

The only fruit I eat is strawberries because they are the healthiest.

There's more slaves today than then. I guess Romans win.

Cool, so by your definition of right, heterosexual supremacy, male dominance, slavery, racism, are all right because a majority guided by convenience and traditional beliefs thinks it's right.

> Citation needed.

What kind of citation? This request is a little bit of a stretch. The majority of people on Earth identify as followers of abrahamic religions. Bunch of them accept the ideas of love, compassion and empathy as a foundation of their religions. You see where the reasoning goes from there.

> That isn't my belief system, hence the disagreement. Do I have to stand up for what you think is right?

Moral relativism really won't help you here. From everything you've written it is very unlikely that you are a consistent speciesist.

As I've said before, you were brought up through convenience, you didn't choose your values, but you interpret them as choice. It is equivalent to people growing up when slavery was acceptable. Even hundreds of years after the war there was still a huge bunch accepting discrimination as a right thing to do.

You are also avoiding the subject.

You are mentioning greater good, last resort methods etc. etc. Eagles aren't last resort, meat every day in your plate, drinking another mammals milk isn't last resort or greater good, raising 60 billions of animals every year, cutting rainforests for soybeans and corn, emitting huge amounts of CO2 and methane for the sake of steak isn't greater good.

I'm not really sure which straw you are reaching for? If you do not care about global warming, about animals (including human animal), if you really do not care, then yes, you are consistent speciesist but that is very unlikely.

Most of the conversations I had people did admit they discriminate because it is convenient and if only this other choice was more convenient they'd do it. They put themselves first. They also saw the hypocrisy and inconsistency of their actions.

Eagles being used for drones, dogs eaten in China, all stem from the speciesism that is indoctrinated through all pillars of growing up.

It's a pretty simple answer.

Slavery was convenient yet it was abolished.

Democracy brought Hitler, yet what he did people did not condone.

If people decide what is right and yet due to convenience act inconsistently it is worthless.

Being born into a world where slavery is convenience didn't make one decide that slavery is right. Just like use of animals or eating their flesh, wearing their skin wasn't one's decision to do it. One was raised in the convenience framework which was some time ago "necessary" and currently isn't. One was nurtured and educated to find it fine but the current values made it inconsistent.

It is not right given our current values. It is now a question of how do people get out of their indoctrination and convenience to stand up for what they believe is right.

There's quite a clear time when not using or not abusing non-human animals was impossible. It's quite clear from all the data that the effort should go towards better biological models and away from wasteful random variable measuring which physics does so well but medicine does it by abusing billions of animals to show a statistically significant discovery.

Are you really claiming eagles are the last line of defense against drones? That is what I get from your line of reasoning. The only reason why they decided to use eagles is because it is convenient, some idiot came up with it and given that non-human animals don't get the same moral considerations as humans (speciesism alert!) it was acceptable and ignored from the stance of non-human animal cruelty.

So, if a serial killer doesn't hold the same values as I do, I guess it's fine for him to kill? Or is it not fine just because he's killing homo sapiens? What if he was killing homo erectus?

We do share the same values. I'm just making my actions consistent with those values. I'm coming from the same sentiment OP had.

Never claimed it wasn't reasonable. It's not as efficient as one might think. Having an 8% precision is ridiculously low.

Given that all of vaccines and medical treatments are tested on animals it is quite obvious I should not want to use any of them. I thought your initial remark made that point but it seems to me you were looking at the ingredients.

The amount of animals being abused by medicine has dropped significantly, I'm not an absolutist and yes I'd definitely do my best not to require medical attention. Would I be stupid enough to endanger other animals by not vaccinating myself or my children?

Your last remark is a little bit more inventive than the "anti-venom" one but it is still coming from an absolutist framework.

Of course not. I'm advocating for humans to stop using sentient feeling beings and risk their lives in their solutions to problems (from diet, clothes, companionship to catching drones). Aren't we more creative than that? Human anthropocentrism at its finest yet I get the scorn.

Citation for what? Animals are by law treated as property. I just explained why someone would think of a solution as ridiculous as that. Parent points out that the solution is not practical but it's clearly demonstrated in the video that it is.

Given that the world we live in is focused on human convenience, with gluttony based on non-human animal flesh, it's really hard to be surprised.

When you have engineers making efficient assembly lines for slaughtering chickens, cows, pigs, all sentient, feeling animals, how is using eagles for fetching drones not the same act of dismissing animal's wishes as morally relevant, or starving dogs for finding truffles, or any human centered activity that risks the life and well being of another non-human animal?

Animals are, by law, treated as property, not sentient beings, so one dead bird is nothing in the realm of anthropocentric humanity. If it fulfills the purpose man has given it's enough of a justification not to take animal's wishes as morally relevant.

Similar to the lottery problem and other covering problems.

Let's say lottery has N numbers. Tickets contain K numbers. What is the least amount of tickets M that you need to buy so you guarantee when the winning ticket is pulled that you matched at least R numbers on that winning ticket with your pool of tickets? LP(N, K, R) = M.

LP(N, K, K) = (N choose K), is winning the lottery and for that to be sure we need to buy all tickets.

LP(N, K, 2) is solved, I believe, for many values (theoretically).

LP(N, K, 3) is already a problem.