171–180 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, even if lobster is proven beyond reasonable of doubt that it feel horrible pain, I'm still going to boil it alive.
Why? Why not kill it humanely first? We don't boil cows/pigs/chicken alive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Requiring a family to wait until a boy is past puberty to consider a circumcision would be harmful, because the procedure is more difficult to perform, and poses a more difficult (and memorable) recovery period. Parents have autonomy to make medical decisions for their infant children, and many are forced to make significantly more difficult decisions than a routine circumcision. I was curious about the CIRP site you…
There is no medical benefit to circumcision. There is risk of harm. Parents do make medical choices -- these would be situations where there is a benefit to treatment and where there is medical consensus that the treatment is worthwhile. That's not the case for circumcision where most doctors agree it shouldn't be performed other than for actual medical reasons like phimosis.
The WHO states, “There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”
>> “People don’t really think of insects as feeling any kind of pain,” said Associate Professor Neely. “But it’s already been shown in lots of different invertebrate animals that they can sense and avoid dangerous stimuli that we perceive as painful. In non-humans, we call this sense ‘nociception’, the sense that detects potentially harmful stimuli like heat, cold, or physical injury, but for simplicity we can refer…
I didn't realise the impact until I remembered how common circumcision is in the US.
It’s ridiculous. This sort of mutilation should be flat out illegal. It’s physical child abuse, plain and simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rationally, there is no difference what-so-ever between your ability to assess how another human feels pain, and how the robot feels pain (or any other "life" form in between). In all cases, you can only observe behavioral responses to stimuli and make conclusions based on that. Therefor, everyone (else) "feels" "pain" equally as far as you can tell. There are 2 differences to speak of but they still don't change the…
Robots don’t anguish over their pain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand this contention in the second link: >Today, many laypeople, scientists, and scholars continue to believe that the black body is biologically and fundamentally different from the white body and that race is a fixed marker of group membership, rooted in biology (26⇓–28). // Okay, I'd fit there. I've never heard the concept of different pain tolerance (only across the sexes), but black and 'col…
But fundamentally (quote) different? Morphological differences seem more superficial.
Like if you have ginger hair and freckles then you sunburn easily, it's a fundamental heritable difference [it doesn't of course mean you deserve lesser/greater rights or opportunities].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no medical benefit to circumcision. There is risk of harm. Parents do make medical choices -- these would be situations where there is a benefit to treatment and where there is medical consensus that the treatment is worthwhile. That's not the case for circumcision where most doctors agree it shouldn't be performed other than for actual medical reasons like phimosis.
> There is no medical benefit to circumcision. The WHO states, “There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why we have to assume that a robot would feel pain. We can explain its behaviour easily without recourse to pain: we 've programmed it to avoid certain situations that we deem dangerous. On the other hand, I don't see why we have to assume that an animal does not feel pain. Have we designed them? No. Don't we, who are also animals, feel pain? And isn't it reasonable to assume that pain is one mechanism by…
Indeed, I think the support for insects feeling pain probably extends to saying cars with accident avoidance feel pain. That is to say, I'm not convinced: pain is a perceptual result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no medical benefit to circumcision. There is risk of harm. Parents do make medical choices -- these would be situations where there is a benefit to treatment and where there is medical consensus that the treatment is worthwhile. That's not the case for circumcision where most doctors agree it shouldn't be performed other than for actual medical reasons like phimosis.
> There is no medical benefit to circumcision. The WHO states, “There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like most medical organizations range from advising against circumcision, to considering making it illegal, with the notable exception of the US [1]. As for the protection against disease: "Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa [..] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear;" [2] Since newborns are unlikely…
Requiring a family to wait until a boy is past puberty to consider a circumcision would be harmful, because the procedure is more difficult to perform, and poses a more difficult (and memorable) recovery period. Parents have autonomy to make medical decisions for their infant children, and many are forced to make significantly more difficult decisions than a routine circumcision. I was curious about the CIRP site you…
They reference both current and historical statements, I assume on purpose to show how the position has evolved. For the case of Australia, the newest statement is on top, and the statements are clearly dated, so there is no room to confuse a newer one with an older one.
It takes very motivated reasoning to conclude they are biased just because they present a historical timeline.