Croatian ancient river naming conventions

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If we don't eat meat how will get our heme iron?

Sesame seeds are rich in heme iron. They also have high p-values.

Boru

[Jackalope]

Eating meat is neither moral nor immoral.

Boru

Not in any objective sense, no - I can accept that it could go against one's subjective morality, though applying that to others is problematic.

Personally, I find some commercial meat production to be something I want nothing to do with but I wouldn't expect anyone else to be convinced or bound by my reasons.

[FlatAssembler]

It's difficult to explain why murder is wrong without implying that eating meat is wrong. The most obvious answer is that, like Descartes claimed, non-human animals cannot feel pain. But modern science has made it clear that for birds and mammals (aside from perhaps those with very devolved nervous systems such as naked mole rats) that's not the case. And I think we can all agree that even in Descartes'es time, there was no good reason to think that.

Murder applies only to sapient creatures. When you can demonstrate sapience among farm animals, I'll reconsider my stance on eating meat.

I don't think that "sapience" is a meaningful concept. It does make sense intuitively, but consider the Moravec's Paradox. Human brains are powerful computers, but they are also very specialized to solve only certain kinds of tasks (that came useful during the evolution). That's why what seems simple to us has little correlation with what is actually simple to a computer. And the same is probably true to the brains of other animals, not just computers. We simply know too little about animal psychology to make such judgements.

[Deesse23]

..... We simply know too little about animal psychology to make such judgements.

...and what do we do... in the absence of evidence?

[Ravenshire]

Murder applies only to sapient creatures. When you can demonstrate sapience among farm animals, I'll reconsider my stance on eating meat.

I don't think that "sapience" is a meaningful concept. It does make sense intuitively, but consider the Moravec's Paradox. Human brains are powerful computers, but they are also very specialized to solve only certain kinds of tasks (that came useful during the evolution). That's why what seems simple to us has little correlation with what is actually simple to a computer. And the same is probably true to the brains of other animals, not just computers. We simply know too little about animal psychology to make such judgements.

Sapience:
ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight
or
the capacity to be self-aware

In the case of taxonomic identification, both apply. 

It's something you obviously lack.

[arewethereyet]

What does this have to do with Croation river naming?

ISN'T IT OBVIOUS?! OPEN YOUR EYES!

I love this so much!

[FlatAssembler]

..... We simply know too little about animal psychology to make such judgements.

...and what do we do... in the absence of evidence?

Well, it's hard to tell. The simple truth is that we cannot eliminate solipsism with absolute certainty. We cannot know with absolute certainty whether other people feel pain. That doesn't make all actions amoral. We should act with precaution. Now, how much precaution, it's hard to tell.

[Deesse23]

...and what do we do... in the absence of evidence?

Well, it's hard to tell.

Its not. What do we do in lack of evidence for a proposition (you made!)!?

The simple truth is that we cannot eliminate solipsism with absolute certainty.

You are talking to yourself? Well, then i guess its you just calling yourself an idiot, isnt it?
Or is it me talking to myself? Damn, didnt know i could be such an idiot.

We cannot know with absolute certainty whether other people feel pain.

Can you know ANYthing with absolute certainty?
For all i know you just put up a red fucking herring here.
Besides, other PEOPLE feeling pain wasnt the issue, right?

That doesn't make all actions amoral. We should act with precaution. Now, how much precaution, it's hard to tell.

Do you have anything with substance to say.....wait, dont tell, it was a rhetoric question.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

...and what do we do... in the absence of evidence?

Well, it's hard to tell. The simple truth is that we cannot eliminate solipsism with absolute certainty. We cannot know with absolute certainty whether other people feel pain. That doesn't make all actions amoral. We should act with precaution. Now, how much precaution, it's hard to tell.

If you can’t know with certainty whether other people feel pain, then you can’t know with certainty whether animals feel pain. This undercuts your given reason for stating that eating meat is immoral. 

If you choose to not consume meat, that’s fine - you don’t need to justify your choice at all. But if you DO wish to justify it on the grounds of immorality, you’re either going to have drop your stance on solipsism or dissolve into a puddle of hypocritical goo.

Boru

[Nay_Sayer]

...and what do we do... in the absence of evidence?

Well, it's hard to tell. The simple truth is that we cannot eliminate solipsism with absolute certainty. We cannot know with absolute certainty whether other people feel pain. That doesn't make all actions amoral. We should act with precaution. Now, how much precaution, it's hard to tell.

I can finally use one of my favorite jokes;  I used to be a solipsist but other people talked me out of it.