Kilrathi War.

Iceberg

Spaceman
Originally posted by mpanty
Originally posted by Iceberg
...Some of the marks of sentience are language skills and tool use. If an animal can't use symbolic language (i.e. a language capable of transmitting concepts more esoteric than "run away" or "food this way") or tools, it's probably not sentient...
Mmmmmh, it seems that you really know A LOT on scientific issues Iceberg...

I would be interested in your opinion, about the issue of just "how sentient" you consider the Kilrathi to be...

Indeed, they show an amazing use their intelligence, unfortunately for destructive means, but ultimately they are somewhat dominated by their primal instincts of "hunting the prey"...

When they are in cockpits fighting the "apes", they are hunting the prey... They hunt human POWs and alien species for sport!

Of course, let's not generalize here, otherwise Quarto will wake up (;)), as there are Kilrathi who have learnt to withold their instincts (e.g. Melek, an generally post-war Kilrathi)... but what do you think Iceberg?
Well, I have to warn you up front that although I take a strong interest in all science (indeed, in all forms of human endeavor), my areas of expertise are computer science and physics, and with the specialization of the sciences these days, I don't have room for more than a passing familiarity with the rest of things. Be that as it may...

By the two criteria that I mentioned (there are more, I'm just thinking off the top of my head here), I think the Kilrathi are sentient... it's just that their society is bent around following their instincts, whereas human society is by and large bent around suppressing our instincts in favor of reason.
 

Dekkar

Spaceman
all well and good but my point was to determine which your body perfers in a case of two similar items you would think about it, hence the hesitation. As there would be very little delay in the time from he sniffs to the recieved sensory reaction, if there was no thought process, involved in determining the better sensation there isn't any reason I can see for such a delay. Granted it's probably just an oversight on my part.

oh and as for "What makes you think that personal supposition is more accurate than years or decades of painstaking research?"

My overwhelming ego. Sci-fi fan, why did you call me a.., oh my god! *Ego slowly fades*.Obviously the ammount of variables that were not taken into account during this experiment would be absurdly high, as with just about any experiment, the unforseen variables are essentially infinate, only stopping at the ammount a person could think of, lighting , wind factors , angles, ect , ect. Obviously to attempt to debate this any further would be a sad attempt, I rarely read scientific journals. I've never had much interest in practical science. Now the science/philosophy/religious hybrid material of the 1500's is a different story but to think the writings of Cornelius Agrippa http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/home.htm
as a reputable scientic source would be absurd. His works were ridiculed back in the 1800's probably even the 1700's.

"In real science, you don't assume anything unless you ABSOLUTELY have to." To bad your not a mathamatician they'll assume anything you tell them to ;). Um weren't you assuming that animals did not have sentience.





[Edited by Dekkar on 02-27-2001 at 01:20]
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by mpanty
Of course, let's not generalize here, otherwise Quarto will wake up (;)), as there are Kilrathi who have learnt to withold their instincts (e.g. Melek, an generally post-war Kilrathi)...
Mwahaha! Too late! :)

Let me tell ya, revisiting a thread after only slightly more than 24 hours, and finding four pages of posts to read through...

It's interesting to read this discussion about how apparently, it's not at all evil or even cruel to kill animals, provided that A) They do not fall into our definition of 'sentient', or B) We kill them for profit, food, or anything but fun.

Hmm... so, Iceberg, if I say that you're not sentient, I can kill you without any remorse? Or, if I decide that regardless of whether you're sentient or not, I'm hungry and I want to eat you, again it becomes acceptable for me to kill you? Wouldn't that mean that you're being illogical by considering it evil for the Kilrathi to kill POWs? After all, the Kilrathi apparently believed that humans are nothing more than animals.

No, I don't think that makes sense. The Kilrathi do plenty of nasty things. But no matter what your phony excuse for human behaviour is, humans are not any better. Sure, we create all sorts of fancy excuses for our behaviour, but at the end of the day, we're no better than the Kilrathi.

Notice something important there - I never said the Kilrathi are good. I have only been arguing that they're no worse than humans. Thus, pointing out all the nasty things they did isn't exactly going to prove anything, because I can point out many, many more nasty things that humans did, and still do.

And Iceberg, we do have evidence of art amongst the Kilrathi long before the end of the war. Historical plays broadcast through mass media, statues and palaces described - by humans - as incredibly beautiful.

LOAF says:
We just fought a very bloody war with the Pilgrim Alliance -- but we didn't enslave them or slaughter them all. And government policy is *not* to discriminate against them.
Government policy? Pray tell, what's that got to do with anything?. There is plenty of discrimination against the Pilgrims (and, on the Pilgrim side, against other humans).

We have *no* evidence that there has ever been a *good* Kilrathi culture -- just constant bloodshed... this isn't the thoughtless rhetoric of the anti-Kilrathi faction, but rather the facts noted by one of your abherrant 'good' Kilrathi.
It just doesn't mesh - we've seen plenty of evidence of cultural development; artwork, literature, sophisticated religious rituals (and if you point out the bloody aspects of the latter, recall that Christians eat Christ every Sunday), great architecture... either the guy who compiled that KSaga report was exaggerating, or he wrote it based on false information.
 

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mpanty's bane
Although the thread seems to change towards the question whether hunting is good or not I will state sth about the Kilrathi (I have the same problem a Quarto: you miss one day and the thread rushes past you :) )
As Quarto said, we have evidence for Kilrathi culture:
In one novel the human hero (as I do not remember which novel it was I cannnot say which human but I think it was End Run with Jason) says that once Hobbes recited a Kilrathi poem and that he was touched by it. But I do not think that Iceberg wants to state that Kilrathi have no culture at all.
But Iceberg, if you say it is hard for the Japanese to change overnight (the example with the whale hunting) so it is hard for the Kilrathi to change after thousands of years of their evolution.
And the main problem here is that we define "good" and "evil" from the perspective of a human (OK, we do not have much choice here). So you say if the Kilrathi do not accept human standards it makes them evil. The Kilrathi have a whole different culture than the Terrans, after all they are supposed to be aliens. As I stated before, failing in a war means for the Kilrathi to fail as a race. And I do not think that the raid on Vukar Tag was alright. What would the human race think if the Kilrathi attacked a city with hundreds of years of culture and magnificent buildings? They would say that it was a atrocity.
And the point that a seasoned Captian should realize that the Iason was only trying to communicate to them is not sound for me. If you encounter an alien species you cannot assume anything about it. After all the Kilrathi did not attack the Iason on sight but waited twenty minutes.

BTW, I am very well aware of the fact that WC does not happen in reality (not yet :) )
And as far as I know experts still debate if the Lusitania carried ammunition or not. Fact is the government was warned that ships would be attacked.

[Edited by Mekt-Hakkikt on 02-27-2001 at 06:10]
 

Iceberg

Spaceman
Originally posted by Dekkar
all well and good but my point was to determine which your body perfers in a case of two similar items you would think about it, hence the hesitation. As there would be very little delay in the time from he sniffs to the recieved sensory reaction, if there was no thought process, involved in determining the better sensation there isn't any reason I can see for such a delay. Granted it's probably just an oversight on my part.

oh and as for "What makes you think that personal supposition is more accurate than years or decades of painstaking research?"

My overwhelming ego. Sci-fi fan, why did you call me a.., oh my god! *Ego slowly fades*.Obviously the ammount of variables that were not taken into account during this experiment would be absurdly high, as with just about any experiment, the unforseen variables are essentially infinate, only stopping at the ammount a person could think of, lighting , wind factors , angles, ect , ect. Obviously to attempt to debate this any further would be a sad attempt, I rarely read scientific journals. I've never had much interest in practical science. Now the science/philosophy/religious hybrid material of the 1500's is a different story but to think the writings of Cornelius Agrippa http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/home.htm
as a reputable scientic source would be absurd. His works were ridiculed back in the 1800's probably even the 1700's.

"In real science, you don't assume anything unless you ABSOLUTELY have to." To bad your not a mathamatician they'll assume anything you tell them to ;). Um weren't you assuming that animals did not have sentience.
That wasn't my assumption. That was my *conclusion.* There's a difference. ;)

Journals are interesting reading. They are very straightforward and blunt, sparing little of the reader's sensibilities in their quest for the truth.
 

mpanty

Keen Commander
Originally posted by Iceberg
Journals are interesting reading. They are very straightforward and blunt, sparing little of the reader's sensibilities in their quest for the truth.
Unfortunately, many journals are made by scientists for other scientists, and are so full of jargon that the average science student has difficulty in following through...
 
Top