Lateralus

There's no doubt that the British tabloids are shocking, but I like our broadsheets. Generally I read The Times, but I can make do with The Guardian.

The Dirt is actually a pretty good read. Obviously it's not Tolstoy, but the stories are interesting. Highlights include Ozzy Osbourne sniffing a line of ants and Vince Neil walking around without realising he's covered in menstrual blood.

That's a pretty shocking shortlist.

Dead Can Dance - Black Sun It's really... Really good.

I didn't even realise it was out yet. I'll definitely go and see it - The book is fantastic.

The lovely old lady across the road from my mothers house is dying of cancer just now. She currently weighs about 5 stone, and has a month or two to live. She's handling it well though. I want to go and see her but I don't know if I could handle it. Disgustingly selfish of me, I know, and I'm going to try to get over it. On the bright(er) side, my uncle recently got over colon cancer. Edit: Sorry - I meant to say I wish all the best for you and your uncle.

Please, continue to do so. I think most of our back and forths have been because I've taken issue with an analogy you've made. ;)

Human deviation from supposed natural behavior is my point. Fights and deaths over females and leadership positions go unpunished in nature; In human society we regulate and assign moral standards to them. That meaning you see nothing immoral with eating meat and that I used an example which couldn't work in a different context? Meaning I can see why the moral question is raised and that human-animal comparisons are a pet peeve of mine. :P

Human deviation from supposed natural behavior is my point. Fights and deaths over females and leadership positions go unpunished in nature; In human society we regulate and assign moral standards to them.

Wasn't my point that it shouldn't be a moral issue? I see nothing "wrong" with eating at all. Clearly, and neither do I. However, I always think that comparing animals to humans is a useless route to go down (vegetarianism, homosexuality in animals etc.) because often what applies to animals just doesn't apply to humans at all. Vegetarians consider eating meat to be immoral and suggest this to other humans who have the potential to agree with them, or be convinced to. You couldn't convince a vulture to do anything.

Yeah, I got that, and the statement applies to many other governments too. The point I'm making is that terrorism is not always related to guerrilla warfare.

Which brings me nicely back round to the distinction between actual and pejorative use.

They definitely were in the past, but I'm not sure about how they operate now. If they use fear as a means to influence people, then I would say yes.

I disagree. Terrorism can't be pointed at any country obviously, but neither can any political, economic or sociological happening. A state can definitely be accused of terrorism though. I think you're confusing the actual definition with the pejorative usage.

Brian: ... Like that time Peter narrated his own life. Peter: I walked into the kitchen and sat down at the table. I looked with a grimace at the questionable meal Lois had placed in front of me. Of course, I'd never tell her how disgusted I was with her cooking, but, somehow, I think she knew. Lois had always been full of energy and life, but lately I had begun to grow more aware of her aging. The bright, exuberant eyes that I had fallen in love with were now beginning to grow dull and listless with the long fatigue of a weary life... Lois punches Peter, knocking him out. Peter: I awoke several hours later in a daze...

So just because humans have the ability to act on a moral level, that means they shouldn't eat meat? I'm not saying the abuse is justifiable - I'm saying that eating it is. I mean if it's there on the market, we can eat it, and we like the taste, why shouldn't we be allowed to eat it when we want? Just to clarify, DJ was talking about not eating meat everyday. No, I just thought it was a silly comparison to use. A human-animal comparison doesn't work when the root issue here is a moral one.

Do you think every single piece of meat we eat came from an animal that has been abused? Yeah, I acknowledge the fact that there are places with bad environments but don't make it seem like that's always the case. That'd be blowing things out of proportion just to get a point across. By the way, it's not like animals look after my well-being either. I'm sure if I died in a desert a vulture wouldn't be thinking, "Ehh, just because he probably tastes good doesn't mean it would be right to eat him." Vultures don't have the ability to think that. I love eating meat, but I think it's impossible to ignore the fact that vegetarianism is a more ethical and moral position to take because of the way animals are treated in order to produce the quantities of meat we consume. I don't think eating meat is immoral, but it's certainly immoral to ignore any unnecessary suffering in the name of convenience and cost cutting.

How does sapience indicate the passing any kind of genetic knowledge? All that's passed on is sapience itself. That is, the ability to 'hear', question, rationalise and think about your own thoughts, or metacognition, which as I said earlier is considered one of the definitions of sapience. It should also be noted that I never said sapience and sentience were mutually exclusive, since I should rather hope that they're both things we could each claim to be.

You really don't consider yourself over analytical? :mrgreen: Heh, it's difficult to talk semantics without being anal.

I didn't mean to make a big deal about the difference, I was just clarifying. Bringing up the Latin roots aids my point if anything. How do you relate knowledge with instinct? To know anything you have to be aware of your cognitive processes. I don't "know" how to swallow food for example, it's an innate ability.

The ant in the example doesn't use any form of reasoning as far as we know and acts entirely on instinct. The definition you provided for sentience at the end of your post is the one that's used incorrectly in most science fiction. Sentience doesn't imply intelligence or self awareness. If those are the characteristics we're discussing then sapience is a more accurate word to use.

Could you explain that a bit more? No problem. Life that is sentient responds to and/or is conscious of it's senses and the outside world, whereas sapient life can control (or actually has) the process of thought. This means that sapient life can think and reason and judge. This article on Metacognition should help to explain.

Sentience is required for subjective experience, sapience is the ability to control cognitive processes.

Generally when people talk about sentience, they mean sapience.

Sweet Chili are the ultimate crisps. I'm eating the Oven Roasted Chicken with Lemon and Thyme just now, which are also pretty good. It's just dawned on me how ridiculous it is that there's a flavour of crisps called that.