Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k


The fact that we already have large industries built on this, they had no response to what Drew told you, and this is critical because while some individual consumers may change their behavior, that does not mean that you’re going to get a wide-scale change. Factory farms still exist; suffering still exists, and we have just introduced animals to an immense amount of suffering that is incredibly important. Are we saying that no one will turn to veganism? Absolutely not, maybe it’s a real one, but the problem is the mass, literally hundreds of billions of life forms for the marginal benefit that they will get is just simply not worth it.


I think here then it is very clear that we have introduced a unique and terrible form of suffering to animals, and this outweighs anything because this literally means that we have hundreds of billions of additional beings in the world that are suffering to a huge extent. I think that this by itself is random. Second, on, will animal society be good? I want to engage with each of the individual mechanisms we get from Serena and Adam. Sure.
<poi>
Given feasibility, it is symmetric on your side of justification for the box, it shouldn’t be for us. Must assert human selfishness, which reverses positive trends in veganism and animal welfare.
</poi>
Or it could be because you think that animals will have a terrible life, that habitats have already been destroyed. Perhaps our whole case. Okay, second thing, first of all, they claim that animals can access higher-level goods. Two things here, first, it’s not clear that higher-level goods actually matter that much. People can derive pleasure from sensory pleasures, and there’s no reason why that is a worse or better life. They’ve asserted some philosophy from John Stuart Mill; they have not proven it.


But the second thing to point out is that if this is true, you can have higher-level harms, grief from someone leaving the sadness that you feel from a loved one dying. Those are things that are massively impactful. They need to show that the higher-level benefits they get are outweighed when we show that the world is increasingly going to be terrible to animals. I think on average, you’re going to have more higher-order harms than higher-level pleasures.


Then they say relationships can get better. I just genuinely don’t know why this matters. I don’t know why relationships actually inherently matter, if you do not want to pursue this relationship, and by and large, many of these animals will already form communo bonds; they already have their customs. I want to point out that the more sentient and cognition you have, the more problems you’re going to have too because you’re going to be much more upset about random things.


Like obviously, animals are a lot more chill than humans because they can’t think about like, you know, other people’s behavior, whether or not selfish interpreted in specific ways. So obviously, then the harms got bigger on their side as well. Then they say guerrilla social movements, Zootopia is my response. There will be scarce resources, different animals with different biological capabilities, some of them being stronger than others.


Obviously, we might have an alpha in our side of the house, but you’d have 40 questions, and it’s fine to acquire the scarce resources that exist precisely because of human intervention. Finally, on self-defense, yes, you can move to a forest, but it’s very difficult when you don’t have trains or planes and when people industrialize that forest. Regardless, you are still in a terrible position.


What’s a group? And I tell you we told you about futile resistance; we told you about basically "War of the Planet of the Apes." Because you anticipate the fact that they might be upset, and very realistically, they may indeed be upset and attack you. They’ll obviously be incidents of animal attacks against humans, and the way that we will demonize them is to say that we need to step down on them, tranquilize them. No response from opening government, this is critical because this means that animals are going to be put in a worse-off position. They won’t be even given tools to innovate because we’re afraid of them potentially uprising, and humans are also going to suffer in this intro.


This motion is going to introduce so much suffering for so many people. I’m proud to everything.
</dlo>
<mg>
I want to make pretty brief clarifications, before going to the details. The first which animals vertically experience pain and here's an actual reason it's an evolutionary adaptive mechanism that is to say as Jason himself concedes animals is experience empathy because they are communal creatures and there is a like, a collective incentive for them to adopt in that particular way. Also similarly, they experience intense amounts of pain because it's an Adaptive response, you experience pain if you have to change the source, could it be able to live all together. Secondly, animals are going to be less capable of experiencing pain action on outside because it's much more terrifying for you to experience pain in order to understand where it is coming from and why this is happening. This is why us are so like, us humans are so capable of being able to conceptualize pain and to find coping mechanisms, this is how I cope with being in England, eventually, it is going to end there is a reason for this or I get vocally like I get vocally support from other sorry populations, your great motions, not a great problem. On extensions, I'm going to talk exclusively about dogs, cats and bunnies it's AKA domestic animals. Why is the most important thing within the debate? Firstly, those stakeholders that own Aggregates are largest in quantity or live the longest lives or over the long term are going to be living that's a knowledge. This is so because humans are stadiums considered people sell which incentive only for themselves meaning, no thank you, there exists massive Industries honestly for creating specific species and maintaining them and advertising them to people but secondly, show because they specifically take care of those species, meaning the aggregate amount of those creatures is very large and they live in longer lives because humans take care of them one way or another. Secondly, compared to other animal stakeholders for example, oh this is Industries animals orbiting opposition like charitable uh, argues that those are going to symmetrically exist because of evil selfish human incentives but I would say this is getting phased out gradually for three days. The first which is the general desire to put carbon emissions meaning that you want to reduce the aggregate amount of meat consumption. Secondly, as everyone in this team can see symmetrical reasons foy you to go vegan or go vegetarian, which means you reduce the aggregate quantity that you're consuming or thirdly, the capacity for the industry to become more technologically advanced and efficient. That's to say, we are producing less chickens and pigs because we can pop them with hormones and then extract more meat for the same amount of others. Don't say the certainly compared to animals in the world, I'm going to flip their mechanism for publication. Sure, we don't care about it they're going extinct, almost all like, species are either extinct or on the verge of extinction and secondly, no thank you, cognition is insufficient to rectify the opening oppositions themselves can see, that selfish humans don't care about them, such as for example, rhinos or whatever. Which means most of the speeches are going to die out, they cannot actively collect device. People opening opposition again concedes an animal like, a competition natural selection is going to continue to exist even if you get like, um, of the competition. Meaning that the most important stakeholders are domestic animals. Now, first of all, why domestic animals who continue like, not prevail, will not create their own kingdoms, why they are likely to continue to stay with humans. Three reasons as to why this is the case. First, of the industry is like, meaning they're likely to indoctrinate them from very small age that they care for the domestic animals for humans. The second reason is that in many cases even if you have cognition, you still want to be a slave to humans because it's just convenient like intuition pump your cats and dogs are not running away or they're running it five percent of the cases, this is so because even though they understand how the world works, they still have more primal desires to find more secure source of food, personal support and to generally speaking to feel comfortable. Thirdly, in many cases the relationships are mostly mutually beneficial, sometimes say you love your dog, it loves you back, so like in many cases it's not likely to run away meaning that there isn't a massive distortion. Now, why is this important, first, on the process of getting an animal, I’m saying that there are some structural problems with getting an animal, not like getting an animal but getting the right animal, because in many cases, firstly, many people don't realize the actual cost commitment that they have to make, this changes because now animals can more actively express their preferences, desires, what they expect out of you, it's a mutual commitment. Which means you can more understand the magnitude of what you're supposed to, for those particular animals it's much more persuasive, coming through them, they're coming from like, other person but I would say that and this is important because if they don't express that, you are likely to abandon them many people massively get cats and dogs and then abandon them after a year or after a few months just massively emotionally scaring for those animals which is a harm on them. but secondly, produces them compatibility partners because they give them like massively emotional discount but secondly, this means that you get a more emotional or intellectually compatible cat or dog, and this is massive because in many cases people just have symbols,”I’m going to retain that cat”,” i’m going to retain that particular dog”.Which means if it's not incompatible, this means you're more likely to not abuse it, but not treat it in the best way possible. Second, This is preferable for you to be able to give up much more meaningful relationship with your animal. The first thing that I would just generally post is, that in many cases the ability to voice out your preferences concerns and everything else, I'll take you in a second, actively means that you are able to save yourself or express or inconveniences and all of money and here I think this point is entirely based in illustrations because there are a lot of examples, in many cases for example, animals cannot actively express if there is something wrong with them, they cannot express their pain, meaning that you fight to pull out that you have a certain condition. Which means they either have shortened lives in disability relationship or you have to pay massive amounts of sums which either is that you're going bankrupt in many cases because you care so much about your pets or secondly, this actively means that you include a massive financial problem or second, you are unable to understand their particular Behavior, which means you're more likely to misfree them or you're more likely to get pissed and get stressed about it. If there are other examples in which your inability to communicate what specifically they want is just guessing on science and you're reading and watching YouTube videos is insufficient for you to be able to understand, if you have a meaningful relation. Considering that first, either able to communicate but also you would like to foster a relationship in which we encourage communication, this is likely to mean that on our side, we have a better relation with those domestic animals.
<poi>
Is it humane to own a sentient being and provide them with absolutely no rights other than whatever you want?
</poi>
Yes, if it consents it's completely normal in my opinion, like, we have proven it, if they can say it's completely fine and we have given reasons a slightly we can say. If it doesn't consent it can run away, you can just basically say that in the vast majority cases, it's not going to disrupt me in. Second, it depends the emotional connections we have with the animal, people are used to communicating with other people, meaning the primary way to which they get validation express their love is expected to be vocal which means you feel guilt when you're talking to your animal and you feel as though the animal doesn't love you enough or you know that it loves you and afterward appreciates you enough, when you're actually doing this. Meaning, that we are better able to get a deeper communication that is to say they can actually express that they love you, that they appreciate you or at least you're able to talk about specific issues is that actively avoidant. I think it's especially also at the end point of your life because many people of you are a massive emotional drama, if they're unable to say what they want to their animals or are function whether it understood them, in their final passing moment which is very traumatizing for people. Who does it affect? Firstly, a massive amount of people that have animals, that are their only companion because they're also important because the previous relations to problematic people because sometimes in their life they have nobody else because they're socially isolated or because they cannot always rely on friends but they can always rely on animals. Which means that it's a massive Source opportunity for people but those poor animals. On all those grounds, it's the most certain impact the most important thing, all about the member of opposition.
</mg>


<mo>
Panel, the greatest horror that Franz Kafka ever imagined was waking up one day in a body that was too big for the cage, we think that subjecting every species regardless of their capacity to form an ethic system to rationalize these things on the planet to the same exact word is to inflict on them and pain Beyond cognition. Three points of setup before I deal with the other machines, the first is that opening oppositions reasons for why animals suffer with consciousness are contingent on human beings mistreating or continuing to mistreat animals at the point, which they have human level consciousness to a large extent. Now, opening opposition does a good job of justifying this, but OG can reasonably claim that this does something to close the empty gap at least in some circumstances as Jason concedes among some animals in some communities. Our extension will sidestep this question entirely and explain why even with the best of intentions uh, animals will continue to suffer and this button push wounds with massive amounts of animal. The second piece of framing is that there's somewhat of a tension in the opening opposition case that is unresolved at this point, opening opposition says that animals will feel horrid being another end. This is plausibly true in some instances but possibly animals, particularly animals that have biological necessity to Invasion things like Auto cannibalism or parasitism would likely develop differing moral systems that account for biological necessity, in the same way that for a long time uh, human beings were able to justify you know, things like eating animals for example by The Virtue that they needed meat and they needed nutrients to do so and had no plant substitutes to replace that. It is likely that similar moral systems would develop that means the horror of autocannibalism and things like this probably aren't going to be the largest impact in the debate even when they're true. Finally on CG, I actually couldn't decide if this was a meme but intuitively I think, OG’s entire case in the norms surrounding the mistreatment and animals will probably change massively, so in OG's best case which would radically redefine and probably Outlaw pet ownership. CJ's case cannot work because the system of relationship would be so different but I also think this would likely drive a massive Rift between domestic animals and humans because of an awareness of the Legacy mistreatment.If everything Biser says is true that dogs have been mistreated massively abandoned on the sides of roads, I don't know, grown out in Bulgaria presumably this entire relationship would just not exist or happen and presumably humans would not want to own dogs and rather kill them more because they're afraid of being like their throat clawed out of their sleep, which is entirely viable if you're a good boy of one day, suddenly, I have to push of a button turns into a monster. Why is cognition a curse at a fundamental level and I want to deal with aniket's principle here, because it's continuing on animals being able to access the benefits that human beings are able to derive recognition I.E. collectivization higher order Societal organization Progressive social structure and so on but note that just because you have levels of cognition it doesn't mean the systems of socialization go away because they are biologically dependent, this means that ants to live in Colony structures, where they're entirely subserving to a queen. Thousands of evolves, which means biologically to be intended to be milked on human beings to take care of them and raise them and domesticated animals many types are still read not to live independently. That means that their moral intuitions are not only incredibly unlikely to align with human beings to any extent, meaning they don't get the social movements or change they want to talk about but moreover, they're likely to suffer massively. Why that is not all right? I don't think Memorial life is morally absolute, that is accessing the moral legitimacy of bringing life into the world of balance of the weighing of harms. That is the benefits of cognition versus the hardest experience, in the same way we consider it morally abominable to bring a child into the world like concentration Capital regime domain genocide, where in the world war zone. I think the principal justification brings animals to the world is remarkably poor, so I don't think the principled analysis can stand. So we're gonna assess the sand youth in Asia, it's not it's the difference between choosing to be a child into the world or not if you believe the choice of a woman is morally equivalent to teach that they can win otherwise they cannot. What are the harms then? which is the Practical contingent that we do to animals making aware of Their Own will. The first is that human beings have evolved over many, many generations to deal with existential angst, we have had thousands of years to balance the internal drive that we have and we share with every animal. That is the drive to survive with the knowledge that we cannot ultimately survive and cannot ultimately achieve things like immortality but animals remain presented by the tension forever between the biological versus the inevitability of death on their side at the point which may get aware of it and note, that species experienced this differentially, if your species is biologically dependent on engaging in mating that kills you and that's your drive. No amount of social movement will help you, if your species depend on being a parasite another species with human level cautious to be aware of how horribly trapped you are, you're never going to emerge from that. Proof says that animals are likely to feel horror and angst because the cows get murdered and get sat in pain patients that cannibalism will make them feel fear, sure, plausibly in some cases but it's far, far more fundamental than this. It's about the fact that you understand the meaningless of life, it's about the fact that you understand the inevitability of death, so that you can understand you can never be more than a parasite a flea on a dog, you have every awareness and cognition of a human being to fully articulate the breadth and depth of your suffering and never being able to escape this. On a way, I think this is more certain than opening oppositions arguments because opening opposition is continuing on characterization of animals experiencing specific moral intuitions and moral systems that they may experience or may not. Our burden is lower than that, our burden says that insofar as every animal has an urge to survive, right, that is the final biological urge and every action that every animal takes to perpetuate their species and continue life on Earth, at the point in which they realize that this is futile hypothetically, they can never be more than the system but lack the ability to have developed the be able to comprehend and rationalize those things without the ability to developed social structures and literally developed the like, over time the social structures to rationalize these kind of things. This leaves massive degrees of horror without having involved to develop those kinds of things but firstly, about the world will get necessarily more violent, i’ll take a poi.
<poi>
So your initial framing is that Adam was just by their own lives and existence and come up with more information, that mitigates the entirety of your case to be clear.
</poi>
they come up with moral codes to justify why they are you know, for example, consuming other animals which mitigates opening opposition, there is no moral system you can come up with in the world to justify the horror of being imprisoned in your own mind and never being able to act upon that, there is no moral system in the world that can mitigate the degree in which you feel at the point which that everything will end as soon as you fulfill your biological urge to make, there is no moral system that can resolve those conflicts; that's the difference, that's the comparative. Why do you make the world more violent? Note that human levels of commission allow for the organization institutionalization of violence the animal kingdom in breeders scale, so the impacts on animals allow for the development of systems of brutality that don't exist on their side. Note, that the animal like this already nasty British sword, CG is right that this mitigates opening opposition but animals cannot wage interest species genocide campaigns against one another because they simply do not have the capacity to organize and systematize that violence at scale. It is uniquely Consciousness that allows that systematization of violence. Ruth says animals will fight each other, this is the state of nature, the reason my version of this argument is comparative is because the systemization of that brutality that is, the ability to engineer Mass cleansing of people on a far larger scale. The ability to develop State systems that institutionalized slavery or capital punishment is vastly worse and vastly more at scale. As I'm giving intuition, human beings have a higher order Consciousness for 10000 years. Not only was one of the first things they did when they gained sentence the genocide of Neanderthals but empirically human beings become vastly more violent towards one another over the past 10000 years. The second claim I want to make here, is why this over the world, this takes up teams at their very best which is that advocacy leads to some tangible benefits for some Human animals. The first is that competition over scarcity, resources necessarily becomes far worse because human level cognition allows for resource exploitation that competes with human beings. So at their very best, competition harms and humans and animals when animal rights becomes a zero-sum trade-off even if human beings want to prioritize this degree it requires more resources than the planet can support the cost benefit trade opportunities means it's necessary that we afford greater privacy for the moral agents that are closer to us. This means it's highly unlikely that these people benefit, which is highly enlightened in a world consumed by climate change, at least people become like Progressive. The second thing I think this doesn't work, because many countries supply chains, many countries are still dependent on eating meat. If they're correct and they stop eating it as a result, they would collapse economically, this suggests they will not stop eating meat so their benefit doesn't like crews. The final thing, I think is that it's backlash is likely to be vastly, animals with cognition will be played on paranoia.
</mo>
<gw>
There's a reason why strong independent women are told that they will die, an old lady with many Cuts because cats and animals can love you and treat you better than anyone could ever could. I am standing for this I'm very proud to propose. Few things on this, and I want to make this very clear writing about firstly on CO. One, they say, ah, this will create hostility, you have a bad relationship, you feel like you're a slave, whatever. Firstly, I want the person there is practical benefits of you living that way like, giving free food, free water, taking on vacations to Egypt, I don't know, where you go, I think most of the time this is something beneficial but secondly, this is better because you can see it as a companionship like, you're a fucking roommate, I don't know, because you can talk and you have a better time. I think it's something inherently that helps you in that regard but secondly, they have a very difficult like, not charitable interpretation of our case because what we run is essentially that there are many people who are deprived of social connections, that are only dependent on their like animals and approximate beings because they love you and they're loyal to you and in the way that this becomes way better, not only can you get Comfort when you cannot otherwise get it from like, robots or any other point but secondly, the most vulnerable people, who are depressed, who need some kind of loyalship and sense of support, like blind people getting some dogs. I think this is on a benefit. Now let's engage with the principle which not both of them and depending on the burden of, oh you feel more pain, before your body is effectively away without even over this. A few things on this, one, not that we essentially have a few things that they say, yes, maybe you'll be able to conceptualize pain a bit more but this is already there is your first season a lot of mitigations as to why you already feel a lot of these emotions, right. So the extent to which their argument is so significant is questionable but let's think about their best, a few ways that you deal better with your emotions without a response. One, you can get comfort from other people, humans get through a depressive episodes into hard pieces of life where they can go, get out with a friend, they can get validation and confirmation that their emotions are valid and that then it is Justified experience those emotions this is the way you get the coverage, this is the way you can move on. Secondly, you are able to, when you conceptualize what is happening when you see, the life again, you can see the goods in the bad situation, right because nothing is white and black, you see the gray moments where you can get some certain validation that, yes, something but it's about maybe you will need something better in the future maybe you'll be able to feel better afterwards but thirdly, I think there's different emotions that they're positive right now, they can get to experience that counterbalance this. Such as, feeling the role like on Netflix, right, you can feel loved more strongly for example, if your companions your kids to your like spouse whatever, where you can just generally feel hope for the future to be able to be better, I think those emotions counterbalances all of the pain that you experience, because look there's something that you're not experience on an everyday basis. It kind of, comes and goes, on the comparison, if you have a net aggregate better positive emotions experience every day, numbers more and can counteract that. Particularly, we flip them on proving why you can do better with pain, even If you experience it more. Now lastly though even if we presume that they have the best case on their side, I'm not sure why we should prioritize animals in Africa because no one your life for thousands of years we prioritize the well-being of humans, I'm not sure why we shouldn't continue to do this so it comes for both things you fear the animals, you're like scared that they will come for you. I would sure, have cognition allows him to like be a better threat for them, even though likely you want to do that I think most of the time you have a same fear of them physically, right, because they can probably jump on you either wa, the reason why this doesn’t happen is because most animals are segregated from humans, you live in the jungle, in the world, oh, you live in like around segregated parts of the world says you will require different needs and happiness, different temperatures, different resources to what you need to defend. Okay, now, last thing on this, even if that's the king, well.
<poi>
Animals are loyal because they can't have the disagreement done, from a killing cognition. Now it can be mad at you that you spend too much time with your girlfriend.
</poi>
yeah sure every animal inside them both care for them. Now let's then well specifically, with um, CO. I think there are a few things necessarily to wait this out, one, if we prove to you not necessarily there's not a big difference in terms of what pain you feel or even if it is we weighed out why it's better in our side. To practice the another stakeholder that have additional benefits to more actors necessarily outweighing them out, but secondly,not current short term, right. If you are able to cook in the future when you get the button but you know like in 10 years this will not be that big of a hard part.Okay anyways now specifically, on our Channel and what I want to weigh it out. I think both of them depending on the same bird even if one of them proves better, I don't know who, you decide. I think most of the things it's not weighed up properly for a few reasons because i’m not sure why you don't necessarily feel a lot of the pain right now thus making their case not as symmetrical not as broken, but uh closing before do you have anything?
<poi>
Yeah the reason my case is comparative is because while animals can develop moral systems to account for biological necessity they cannot develop moral systems that can allow them to rationalize the horror of being a moral agent that lacks the ability to change the world around them. That's the comparative.
</poi>
conditions for yourself in the secondary, there is the Tulip. I'm not sure why they have to be those oppressed animals that live within human cells will always be oppressed, not that most people just chill and don't even know human sickness like how the you know in the Amazon, they're all like you're of course that they're humans even, how much are white this is the case. But secondly, I think again this Discounter balance but other emotions but you can't get better in the future or that you could never met their life afterwards. I think this does change it, sometimes like once in 10 years, but I think you'll get the doctor because most students come but maybe you keep changing system, so you just live as best as you could right now, I'm not sure why this isn't like it. Now, let's see my favorite opening government, I think a few things one, while I like the principle and I'll say yeah, I think they never proved it like they can say EPL wanted to solve it but they never proved me why this is an inherent right you should be given, moreover, they never prove like it's depend on the practicality that you live a better life which is questioned alone by your oppositions.
As opposed to that they haven't really proven, it's not a very different extent but we prove is, that more active surrounding and for a long time, not us.
</gw>
<ow>
Birth is a curse and existence is a prison. The only way to free yourself from the cage is to never enter it in the first place. I want to do a preemptive weighing of our case, where I thought of each team in the round. Firstly note, on scope, this affects every single animal by virtual taking the pill of being like a human, every animal has to suffer this, no matter the coping mechanisms, no matter where they reside domesticated or not secondarily, it's a time frame. This exists over the course of their whole lives yet you might have coping mechanisms but it exists subconsciously in your brain, you dream about it, it exists at every point where you might not think consciously about it but you know what exists in the back of your head. Thirdly, on magnitude, this is the deepest horn because it affects your existence your identity, that is to say you might for example, if I cut my hand I can put a Band-Aid on it, but I don't know how to rationalize that I might die. So, what happens when I go six feet under the ground, what will happen to my family afterwards? Will I see them? These are things that philosophers have said thousands of years, constructing words and still never fulfill the explanation for what they mean and how they affect their lives. Do not let it be lost on you how deep and magnified this impact is and how many animals it impacts. Let's dismantle each team now first Beyond CG, I want to take down their frame rate. Firstly, on their framing that that these pets live the longest lives. Note, this is just untrue in Surprise industry animals have far more profitability and so far there's a bigger meat market so they sell something more than they milk substantially more of them over the course of a long lifetime, lifetime in order to sell their like milk and to like kill them at the end. But also this is just empirically false like, hurdles guys like, having foreign lifespan with elephants and blue whales live for like seven years 80 years, this is ridiculous. Secondarily, and this takes down the CG case, the premise of consent doesn't work, because their subordination is done in a state where they could otherwise not conceive of an alternative. That is to say the logic that they use is, ah, you were a subordin, you were evolutionary designed to be okay with this subordination, right. they give you food, they give you water, they, you become Ben's best friend but the issue is you became men's best friend when you didn't know you could be like a man in the first place. So the logic presupposes the actual analysis afterwards but secondarily, even if you don't buy that the hostility gets substantially worse, why? because of a threat and uncertainty. That is to say the relationship between the human and the pet was that, I am the owner, I am the one who can do things that they cannot, I am the one that can tell them sit down, do not talk back to me take, stay in your leash or I will not feed you. You cannot change this relationship or if you try to change this relationship, the bond breaks down. It ignores the, uh assumption that both parties entered into that bond in the first place, so in other words, I think it's comparatively more likely to be a question where they needed substantial more analysis to justify that. but also if they run away, then you just get all of the harms that oh and also we we have on our side, so our impacts are still like contingent, even if they exist within that state because, even if you're a man's best friend. If you wonder will he love me after I die, what happens, I don't know, the existential harm even exists in their best case. Now, on the responses to us they say that, ah, there's a coping mechanism the same way humans have human beings or like other people to say that they love you or they make you forget about death sometimes. No, it's a code, it is never a solution to the magnified impact that Matt Told You. So at best it is meeting it for you, they never quantify, how much that mitigation is, how often can you have conversations, that is if people get bored of trying to reaffirm you that your existence is fine, if it's temporary. So, I don't know, exactly how large the mitigation is and they never do that to explain it. but also, there is no coping mechanism for the Trap of existence, the death is inescapable, so you have dreams, you don't know if you're going to bridge. It's not just that I want to like make this comment it's the Trap of existence and you not knowing what it means in the universe not knowing what to do with it but also like, if it's true that there's coping mechanisms, there's coping mechanisms on their side too. That is to say if it's true that most pets Don't Run Away, most pets find owners then they'll impact of their own harm is mitigated by their own analysis that those coping mechanisms otherwise exist via biological evolutionary means to allow it to cope with that, If a dog gets hit it forgets about it and then like goes to the owner again so they mitigate their own case we're also on vein, I want to be clear on the vein, the benefit of having a substantially better relationship is marginal and speculative because they lose why their relationship breaks down. I don't know why it's better to be able to talk to your dog than just talk and think he might understand, I don't know, if he actually does versus the actual implication that even if it's on every dog but a lot of dogs will be trapped in the bodies not knowing why they can't walk or be as powerful as human beings that own them CG out, let's take out OG, know what a lot of them, so on OG note, the principle is one of the reciprocal obligation is contingent on the practice. If I just prove the Practical, I just prove that. Secondarily, they say it's wrong to deny them this right, even without utility, they never explain why. That is to say they never explain why it's wrong even if it based on lives worse, they say, firstly, you can have the capacity to defend yourself and move somewhere else so even be in the best cases. Here's the difference, this is not contingent on communication or cognition, it's biological evolutionary means of self-defense. If you're in an area where humans are stepping on the Ant Hill you know to move to a different area, so their mechanism is not unique to the actual emotion, so there only defense self-defense analysis is on advocacy. So being able to build Bridge an empathy Gap that has never been done before. Through their credit, that's this might be done and it's different than 10 existing veganism. why is this unlikely to materialize? but I'll keep them first
<poi>
According to your POI the reason cognition is awful is because you have no power to change your position in the world. If true, assuming feasibility would you remove cognition and speech from marginalized groups to continue doubling problems in society?
</poi>
No, this is where it might affect opening. I wouldn't move the capacity to cognition for everyone because it's, it's inherently existence that is it, it's not just about knowing what to do in the world. I guess you might get a promotion or a job but the point is it's existential to the point where you can never know the fullest extent of your potential. If really you wonder, I have more, I'm on a hedonic treadmill or what happens you've got hydraulic treadmill ends and I end up dying. It is far more deep what Matt gave you. Let's dismantle their advocacy now, they presume that you collectivize, that is to say that every animal is now on the same page or on the same side, and why do they do this they say, ah, because we're not rational. No, human cognition does not equal rationality because every human would be rational, if humans are not irrational, unless they have different social movements, there's a reason why there's violence versus non-violent movies they have similar experiences. Why is it likely, that is to say, different experiences and identities and the ants that was fed by the queen, might be substantially more or less aggressive. So it's unsure the way they collect their eyes on the same page but she also they presume they're fully rational, why not? One, they haven't had the decades or centuries to develop the skill of rationality, they only have the the town. Secondarily, coordination is hindered by human systems that try to isolate them and thirdly, they have a prisoner's dilemma. I don't know, if the other animals are going to fight against the humans or try to steal their wealth, so I'll do it first and this is what we're struggling under one of the opening oppositions gave you. Matt Warren you weighed against opening up because I don't have to. Don't enter the cage.
</gw>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.