This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Scott_Cunning's Profile

Scott_Cunning's Avatar Joined over 4 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Scott_Cunning

More Discussions by Scott_Cunning

Latest Comments by Scott_Cunning

Go to: Pigs and dogs: a double standard

Scott_Cunning's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by Scott_Cunning

Comment 22 by JuliaGulia :

I'd have to disagree, You can't transfer human values to animals. We assume that pigs don't like living in small spaces because we wouldn't like it but they would naturally live in enclosed wooded areas, they don't like to be outside too much because they get easily sunburned.

The fact that we don't love them the way we love a dog probably doesn't even occur to them, they have other pigs for company. Abattoirs have to obey the law when slaughtering animals and we have no reason to assume they do not.

I don't think you have a very good appreciation for what factory pig farm is like. To suggest that the stalls and slats that pigs are made to stand within approximate their natural enclosed wooded environs is ludicrous. Yes, they have other pigs for company. But people in prisons have other people for company, and they live in far better conditions than pigs in a pig farm. As for abattoirs obeying the laws, that's not really the point. The point is that the laws don't provide any sort of adequate protection for the animals in the first place, let alone the torture they endure while they were housed at the farm.

To be fair, I'm aware of all of this, and after nearly three years of not eating meat, I started eating it again. I don't have any principled reason for it. I still believe the treatment of animals that led me to stop eating meat is just as bad as it was when I stopped. So that probably makes me a worse person, but people are absolutely fooling themselves when they try to say these animals aren't miserable.

Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:15:34 UTC | #597484

Go to: If not now, when?

Scott_Cunning's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by Scott_Cunning

Comment 5 by monkey uncle :

But he really is right. No first-term president could get away with it and hope to be re-elected. But maybe Obama in his second term? Is it something a president can do? Or does he have to get it passed by Congress?

All revenue and taxation laws must originate in the House of Representatives, which, right now, is controlled by the Republican plutocrat/tea party coalition. So, there probably is no chance of this happening unless Republicans lose their majority in the 2012 election. Even if that happens, I doubt the Democrats would have the balls to do it because the Republicans have brainwashed most of the population into believing that all taxes should be eliminated.

I'm ashamed that I can't say this with certainty, but I'm pretty sure a bill does not need to originate in the House. A bill can move through either the House or the Senate first. In many cases, parallel pieces of legislation move through at the same time. In any event, an identical version must pass both houses before it is then submitted to the President. While taxation and the budget in general are squarely within the province of Congress, it is funny to see how often Congress will sit around saying they are waiting on the President to submit something to them as if they have no independent capability to craft legislation.

Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:10:21 UTC | #597284

Go to: Are You There God? It's Me, Brain

Scott_Cunning's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by Scott_Cunning

Comment 25 by Steve Zara :

I would think pantheists and those Buddhists who're only looking for a harmonic lifestyle would fall onto the same side of the agent-application fence as the author

Exactly, and that's a considerable number of people.

He says:

As a result, today we overshoot our mental-state attributions to things that are, in reality, completely mindless.

We clearly all don't, so this generalisation is incorrect.

Does it really need to apply to everyone in the manner you're suggesting. Perhaps if you look at it as "As a result, today we [are susceptible to] overshoot[ing] our mental-state attributions to things that are, in reality, completely mindless."

Isn't this very similar to talking about our sugar craving being an artifact of evolution that no longer serves such a useful purpose. I imagine one might counter that we all have a sugar craving, whereas your point is that some groups of people don't make this error in ascribing agency to god. But simply because some Hindus, Buddhists, pantheists, animists, don't ascribe agency to a god-figure doesn't mean they don't ever make the error of ascribing agency to inanimate objects.

In this sense, to use the analogy to sugar craving, I think you're viewing the author as saying something like we have a built-in evolutionary tendency to get fat, and saying, but look at all these skinny people.

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:41:46 UTC | #590620

Go to: How Many Stars? Three Times as Many as We Thought, Report Says

Scott_Cunning's Avatar Jump to comment 43 by Scott_Cunning

Whether they misestimated the number of stars by 300, 400, 500% or a factor of a billion or more doesn't seem to be the interesting bit. The interesting part of the article is that someone developed a new approach to discern more information about the galaxies in our universe. The new approach exposes problems with the old assumptions, which will leads us to reconsider other things we thought we knew about the universe. I'm sure everyone realized at the time that the 100:1 ratio wasn't an ironclad rule. No one could have seriously thought that assuming 100 dwarf stars per sun-star would hold absolutely constant. But now there is a new way to check that and confirm that it isn't a good assumption. And yes, this new approach has its own assumptions that may not hold up. That's interesting. I find way too many articles on here being greeted with a so what attitude.

Fri, 03 Dec 2010 04:41:25 UTC | #557650

Go to: An honest peek into the brain of a Christian conservative

Scott_Cunning's Avatar Jump to comment 42 by Scott_Cunning

With no trace of irony, "They took an American celebration and made it about them." Apparently, atheists aren't Americans and can't participate in the 4th of July.

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:28:44 UTC | #488295

More Comments by Scott_Cunning