Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists • Hacker News Board

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#161

Post by papsosouid » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 6:27 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #158

papsosouid wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a whole lot of unfounded assumptions. Who says those that escape knew the fate of those that didn't? Who says they have a choice as to where to go? Perhaps they need to be in that area at that time because that is where their food is at that time. The options you present are not even remotely close to exhaustive, yet you hide behind their totality for your excuse to avoid considering the issue at all.

Dolphins are among the freest creatures in the ocean, traveling vast distances in little time and pretty much independent. And I'm sure something drives them to be in that bay at that time; its just not a higher intelligence, by all the evidence. Thus the tendency to reinforce: dolphins are dumb animals. So this argument isn't 'considering the issue at all'? Then what's it about? Some other issue? Would a personal at…

Your reply did not add anything to what you originally said. You are making the assumption that dolphins are stupid because humans manage to kill them. And then you are using that faulty assumption as a reason to excuse yourself from considering the issue.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#162

Post by unoti » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 6:29 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #48

sethbannon wrote: post #35

I applaud this. It's time we stop drawing the line of where rights begin and end at the species barrier and start taking a characteristics based approach. What are the characteristics of a human that lead us to say one should have rights? If other species share those characteristics, they too should be granted those rights.

As a species, humans agree to basic rules of conduct that form an implied Social Contract. Can any non-human species do that?

> As a species, humans agree to basic rules of conduct that form an implied Social Contract. Can any non-human species do that?

A great question, and the answer is yes. Here's a clear example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY Monkeys cooperate to solve a problem, and one of them clearly shows a sense of social contract when he gives a reward to his partner, even though he could easily keep it for himself.

Studies have shown that animals definitely have an innate sense of fair play: http://twentytwowords.com/2012/10/08/monkey-hilariously-reac...

The above study has been replicated on a variety of animals.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#163

Post by papsosouid » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 6:40 PM UTC

Osmium wrote: post #159

papsosouid wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are reading your own extra motivation into what I said. I stated that your premise ("cruelty to animals is punished purely because of ethical considerations for the animal's well being") is false. I provided evidence to support this. That is all. I did not make a moral or ethical statement. I am not suggesting or proposing anything. Simply pointing out that our protection of non-human animals is in fact based on…

Fair enough; I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. I was responding to what you said about "ignoring animal abuse when it happens to pigs" and just providing a counterpoint to that: that not everybody is ignoring it, and that there's no reason why we should ignore it either (because it's not an "ethical dilemma" -- a "dilemma" presupposes we can't both reduce the suffering of pigs and continue to eat them, exce…

I realize not everyone ignores it, but I was speaking to the question of law. It is perfectly legal to do things to a pig that will land you in jail if you do them to a dog. And then there's plenty of things that are not legal to do to a pig, that you can do anyways because the law isn't enforced.

It does pose an ethical dilemma. Of course we can reduce the suffering of pigs. Yet we choose not to. We choose not to, because we like cheap pork. This presents us with an ethical dilemma if we actually think about the issue. Most people make a significant effort to avoid thinking about the issue, because they do not want to consider the ethical dilemma of "if I eat this bacon I cause suffering vs if I don't eat this bacon I won't taste bacon". Treating pigs humanely would require a massive increase in pork prices, which would reduce the amount of pork related pleasure people can have, thus a dilemma of its own. Treating pigs as we treat dogs would involve not killing them for food, totally removing the pork pleasure, and again poses a dilemma.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#164

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 6:40 PM UTC

papsosouid wrote: post #161

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dolphins are among the freest creatures in the ocean, traveling vast distances in little time and pretty much independent. And I'm sure something drives them to be in that bay at that time; its just not a higher intelligence, by all the evidence. Thus the tendency to reinforce: dolphins are dumb animals. So this argument isn't 'considering the issue at all'? Then what's it about? Some other issue? Would a personal at…

Your reply did not add anything to what you originally said. You are making the assumption that dolphins are stupid because humans manage to kill them. And then you are using that faulty assumption as a reason to excuse yourself from considering the issue.

One more try: dolphins may not be very intelligent because they cannot or won't communicate between themselves. Or their ethics are unfathomable to us because they don't seem to value dolphin life as humans do human life.

Got it? That's the entirety of the argument. If you'd like to address that argument, great. If you just want to agitate for dolphin right by shouting down argument, then fell free, I'm done.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#165

Post by jQueryIsAwesome » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 6:41 PM UTC

papsosouid wrote: post #148

w1ntermute wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, slavery exists to this day in many parts of Africa and India. That should be our first concern.

But first we need to find out exactly which slaves have it the worst, and free all of them. We can't go around doing good things for anyone other than the absolute worst off people. Luckily this means we can spend all our time debating who has it worst instead of doing anything to help anyone.

This is snarcky but it points out as strongly as possible what is so wrong with prioritization of good causes, it should pop out automatically every time someone tries to discuss this. And I would like to add that there are enougth amount of humans for caring about all the good causes.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#166

Post by papsosouid » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 6:45 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #164

papsosouid wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reply did not add anything to what you originally said. You are making the assumption that dolphins are stupid because humans manage to kill them. And then you are using that faulty assumption as a reason to excuse yourself from considering the issue.

One more try: dolphins may not be very intelligent because they cannot or won't communicate between themselves. Or their ethics are unfathomable to us because they don't seem to value dolphin life as humans do human life. Got it? That's the entirety of the argument. If you'd like to address that argument, great. If you just want to agitate for dolphin right by shouting down argument, then fell free, I'm done.

I got your argument. And addressed it. In the first post. You have made two additional posts which have added absolutely no information to the first, and have not addressed the flaws of your argument. Again, there are many other explanations for what you observe besides "dolphins are dumb" and "dolphins don't care about each other". Given that we have evidence of dolphins being smart, and them caring about each other (and humans even), your assumptions are not likely to be correct.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#167

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 6:45 PM UTC

papsosouid wrote: post #155

DanBC wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No it isn't, Yes, really, it is. > it extends the amount of time the prey is alive and capable of causing harm, and the amount of contact between predator and prey. No. It keeps the cat's jaw (which is the part that delivers the killing bite, and which is the part that does the eating) away from the beak and teeth and claws, while the paws do batting and patting. It increases the chance of getting a kill, which is…

>Yes, really, it is. Your premise is not supported by evidence. One "researcher" made this claim, and provided no evidence to support it. There is nothing to support the notion that playing with prey reduces injuries to the predator. >It keeps the cat's jaw (which is the part that delivers the killing bite, and which is the part that does the eating) away from the beak and teeth and claws, while the paws do batting a…

[deleted]

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#168

Post by crusso » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 6:46 PM UTC

papsosouid wrote: post #145

crusso wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we don't consider that a prerequisite for rights in humans by any reasonable interpretation. You miss my point. It's not a requirement for any individual, but it IS a requirement for members of a species in general. Most humans are functioning members of society. The ones that aren't, whether it's temporary or permanent are protected implicitly and explicitly through social contract and the laws we've created. No dol…

No, it is not a requirement, that is what the discussion is about. If it were a requirement, we wouldn't be trying to decide if it should be a requirement or not. Using a sample size of one to prove a point is absurd.

I'm not saying it's a proof by statistics. It's a requirement in order for the system to maintain logical consistency.

We can do whatever we want. We can give citizenship rights to gummy bears because they look like real bears and bears have two arms and two legs just like people. It would be illogical and counterproductive to any real advancement for society, though.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#169

Post by DanBC » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 6:49 PM UTC

papsosouid wrote: post #155

DanBC wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No it isn't, Yes, really, it is. > it extends the amount of time the prey is alive and capable of causing harm, and the amount of contact between predator and prey. No. It keeps the cat's jaw (which is the part that delivers the killing bite, and which is the part that does the eating) away from the beak and teeth and claws, while the paws do batting and patting. It increases the chance of getting a kill, which is…

>Yes, really, it is. Your premise is not supported by evidence. One "researcher" made this claim, and provided no evidence to support it. There is nothing to support the notion that playing with prey reduces injuries to the predator. >It keeps the cat's jaw (which is the part that delivers the killing bite, and which is the part that does the eating) away from the beak and teeth and claws, while the paws do batting a…

> There is nothing to support the notion that playing with prey reduces injuries to the predator.

All cats play with prey. Thus, it is evolved behaviour. It has some benefit, otherwise cats would just use the killing bite straight away.

> Paws are able to be bitten [...] there is no benefit to prolonging the exposure to danger by keeping the prey alive.

Cats have 4 paws. It's possible for a 3 legged cat to survive. Hard, but possible. The cat prolongs the exposure to danger of redundant limbs in order to protect the jaw.

> A quick bite to the neck is the best chance of killing. Letting the prey struggle and escape to be re-caught is lowering the chances of getting food, not raising it. You are claiming the opposite of reality.

A bite to the neck is the method of killing. Small animals are quick, thus the cat plays with the prey to weaken the animal so that when the cat applies the killing bite the small animal is less likely to escape.

> They only do so when they are teaching young to hunt. They do not play with their prey when they are engaged in the process of "acquire food to prevent death".

This is incorrect.

EDIT: You are incorrect about only one research suggesting that play with prey is a defensive part of hunting behaviour.

Trivial www searching find many different researchers suggesting this.

Here's one:

(http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bne/102/5/760/)

> In this article, we show that feline predation involves a continuous gradient of activation between defense and attack and that predatory "play" results from an interaction of the two. [...] In such shifts, no sharp demarcation between play and predation was evident. [...] These results suggest that play with prey is a misnomer for predatory behavior that fails to escalate along the gradient between defense and attack. Movement notation analysis revealed that playful movements are adaptive in that they protect the cat from injury.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#170

Post by papsosouid » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 6:53 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #167

papsosouid wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, really, it is. Your premise is not supported by evidence. One "researcher" made this claim, and provided no evidence to support it. There is nothing to support the notion that playing with prey reduces injuries to the predator. >It keeps the cat's jaw (which is the part that delivers the killing bite, and which is the part that does the eating) away from the beak and teeth and claws, while the paws do batting a…

[deleted]

>All cats play with prey

Really? Did you have some evidence to support that claim? I can't find anything to support that notion at all. In fact, all I found indicates that wild big cats only play with prey in captivity, and when teaching their young to hunt. Wild cats hunting do exactly what you claim they don't do: they go straight for the kill.

>Cats have 4 paws. It's possible for a 3 legged cat to survive. Hard, but possible.

That does not address the issue at all. A cat with 4 healthy legs and an infected cheek is in a far better position to survive than one with a healthy cheek and an infected foot. There is no benefit to risking limbs over face, especially not risking limbs repeatedly for extended periods of time. And this all makes the completely unfounded assumption that "playing with prey" doesn't involve putting the face in danger, which is nonsense. Watch a cat play with a mouse, it will grab it with its mouth repeatedly during the process.

>This is incorrect.

Stating that doesn't make it so.