Page 7 of 8 [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

30 Jan 2010, 5:30 am

That's stupid and ridiculous about PETA if it's true. Why is there so much insanity around this issue? Why do people go to such extremes? There need to be standards of practice like what we see for people so animals are at least treated humanely. What is so difficult to understand about that?



TheOddGoat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 516

30 Jan 2010, 8:21 am

I love animals and often feel more empathy for them than people.

But in the argument of worth, although I think its true that everything is equal if you come from an unbiased viewpoint, I am a human. As a human I have a bias towards my fellow humans, and next in line of loyalty are other domesticated animals like dogs.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jan 2010, 1:02 pm

Markie wrote:
For many things in life there are no solid foundations. Hence people argue about them. Physics might be an exception, but even there, there's different theories over which physics people argue, making this argument and that.

Umm.... no. People argue over things because there are somewhat solid foundations, from which something can be constructed. So, people have this or that theory, which they support using their facts, which are solid, and using these facts they go to war with other theories which often are inconsistent with these facts or at least have issues in dealing with these facts. In this case though, there aren't really facts to dispute.

Quote:
I disagree. I think I am making intellectual coercive statements and therefore presenting arguments. You simply fail to accept or recognize them as such.
It's like me saying: You're stupid. And no matter what you say, even if you beat Einstein, I can still say: "You're stupid."
Just because you fail to accept or recognize intellectual coerciveness, does not mean something is not an intellectual coercive thought / argument.

No. You've practically denied that you've made intellectually coercive statements at many points during this exchange. Not only that, but even the term "intellectually coercive statement" is probably being too lenient on what an argument really is, because an argument is a structure that is more like itself than anything else. I merely used "intellectual coerciveness" as a property that is beneficial to look at. But, an argument is like a trap, so in order to argue with someone, you've got to trap them with some structure. There are no structures used though. Instead, I think I recognized the term I should be using: syllogism. Arguments aren't statements, they tend to be syllogisms of some form. Y'know: 1) Socrates is a man. 2) All men are mortal. 3) Therefore Socrates is mortal. I am not trying to say that arguments are necessarily limited to that form, but nothing that has been done has even come close to approximating it.

Umm.... I am not failing at this, I think you're failing to recognize what the real matter at hand is about what an argument really is. You *aren't* being intellectually coercive, I have no reason to be persuaded at all by your statements. I can literally just dismiss them at will, because they don't even attempt to trap me. I suppose they could be arguments if you used additional premises but you aren't doing that. I mean, I suppose that these are "arguments" in a layman's sense, but not really arguments in a deeper sense.

Quote:
This I think is the heart of this little "argument" we're both having here, it is where I think you are mixing things up. Saying that no animal has died for fake meat makes it an argument, and a very important one as such, for all those people who care about animals. You might not be one of them (obviously), and thus, for YOU, that might not be an "argument", or more specifically, not an argument that you accept as relevant (for you), but that does not mean it is not an argument per se.

No, it really doesn't. "No animal has died for fake meat" is just a statement of fact. I have no reason to have my mind changed by that, as such a fact has no relationship to me or what I believe. So, no intellectual coerciveness.

In any case, arguments aren't supposed to be subjective. They're supposed to be objective, as arguments are attempts to find matters of fact. Now, I suppose we could just make it "irrelevant", but... it lacks a lot of the structure that is needed to really be intellectually coercive in the first place. It only seems that way because of the hidden premises that people have, but hidden premises cannot be assumed.

Quote:
We live in a society with humans having rights as you like to boast, such as your right to bear arms, but not animal rights.
Then tell me: For Nazis, a Jew's right to live, simply because he was a human being, was not an argument. Nazis simply didn't accept that argument and murdered Jews.

Umm...... ok? I think you ignored my last statement, but whatever. A Jew's right to live because he was a human being ISN'T an argument. It is nothing. You don't know what an argument is, and to a person who knows what an argument is(but who hasn't thought on the matter recently), it can be hard to explain but kind of obvious. But here's wikipedia's term: "In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

So, you keep on saying that I am just being an elitist, but you don't actually know what I am talking about.

Quote:
Now tell me, saying that Jews deserve not to be murdered, simply because they are humans, is NOT an argument simply because Nazi's didn't accept it as intellectual coercive?

No, it is not an argument because it ISN'T intellectually coercive. Too many hidden premises.

Quote:
For Nazis, Jews were an inferior race. For them, it was intellectual coercive to murder them.

No, it wasn't. Intellectual coerciveness is only a property of arguments. Possibly facts in an environment where the arguments are known. But "intellectually coercive" isn't a statement about states of affairs. *Something* must be coercing for intellectual coerciveness to take place, and that something must be a logical framework that forces people to certain conclusions.

Quote:
Don't you see that your way of argumentation is identical to what Nazis used to excuse, or rather "explain" their murdering of Jews?
Wouldn't you agree that this is an argument indeed, and a problematic one for your arguments presented so far (because it renders them intellectual non-coercive)?

I don't think I am making arguments. I also think that there is more to the Nazis than you are thinking about, and if one accepts all of the premises of many Nazis, then it would likely be rational to kill Jews.

I don't think that you've made an argument either, at best you've made an argumentum ad Hitlerum, an appeal to Hitler. Now, the problem is that this is a fallacy. And I don't usually count fallacies as valid arguments.

Quote:
(I mean IF you were / are honest...) Or do you simply lack the intellectual power / abilities to perceive the intellectual coerciveness of this?

No, you don't know what you are talking about. This isn't a matter of my ability either, likely not even yours, you've just had probably so little exposure to argumentation that you don't know what you are doing, while you think you do because you think "Well, I've seen arguments!" but.... you likely have not ever really dealt with philosophical/academic rigor or seen it.

Quote:
Just because Nazis thought Jews were an inferior race, telling them that they are human beings like others, and that thus, they have human rights like others, was NOT an argument for Nazis.

The notion that Jews are human beings, that human beings have rights, therefore Jews have rights is an argument. It is the first case where I see an argument might take place.

It still is an argument, however, the Nazis have a more nuanced view of humanity and denied human rights. So, it could reasonably be interpreted that 1 or 2 took place, and it could even reasonably be argued that Nazis actually didn't violate any notion of this, because Jews were also seen as destructive for people, so a Nazi could say "Jews have rights, rights do not trump the general welfare of society, Jews are a threat to the general welfare of society, therefore we can do whatever is necessary to Jews in order to protect society"

Quote:
So does that make it NOT an argument IN GENERAL, to say Jews should not be murdered because they are human beings and thus entitled to human rights?

One can structure the set of premises given into an argument in this case(but only because I am assuming that the statement of human rights goes earlier in the structure than you put it in your writing. If someone just gave this to me out of order like you did, and with missing premises, then I would not accept that as an argument).

The argument would go like this:
1) Human rights exist and are extended to all humans(premise)
2) Jews are humans(premise)
3) Jews have human rights (derived from 1 & 2)
4) Human rights preclude unjust execution (premise)
5) Therefore Jews should not be unjustly executed (derived from 3 & 4)

Quote:
Just because something is NOT an argument FOR YOU, or for anyone else, does NOT make it NOT intellectual coercive. You're failing to accept, or understand the intellectual coerciveness of an argument does not mean it's not intellectual coercive.

I am not failing at all. You're failing to understand what is going on.

Quote:
Have you ever taken into consideration that your own intellect might be limited and that thus, you don't understand perfectly intellectual coercive arguments? Or is that a possibility that has slipped your supposedly "intellectual coercive" mind entirely?

Umm..... no. Why? Well, I know argument structure somewhat well. Not only that, but my mind is not highly limited, but rather the opposite. Finally, you've just started using terms I used as buzzwords, meaning that you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:
I disagree. It is intellectual coercive, you just fail to accept the intellectual coerciveness of it. That's a difference. And I can't remember having "admitted that this could easily not be intellectually coercive at all". If you're implying what I said about that animal rightists perhaps being a little "boinkers", you are jumping to intellectual non-coercive conclusions. Just because someone is "boinkers" does not mean he or she cannot make intellectual coercive arguments. If you are an Aspie, you're a little "boinkers". That doesn't mean you cannot make intellectual coercive arguments.

I am not making arguments. People do jump to intellectual but non-coercive conclusions all of the time though, so you can't fault me for that. I am also not saying anything about "boinkers" or anything like that. Additionally, usually layman's labels of "insanity" have less to do with neurological defect and more to do with disconnection between oneself and one's reality.

Quote:
You should judge arguments by their content value, not by their origin.

There's no content. That's the judgement.

Quote:
So you say. I disagree entirely. This isn't an argument, but simply your opinion. Your opinion is that all I say aren't any arguments because none of it is intellectual coercive as you deem. That's your opinion. I disagree, but you are entitled to your own opinion. Just like I am to mine. :-)
Now was that intellectual coercive? ;-)

No, it wasn't intellectually coercive.

Quote:
Now *I* think you're becoming a little more intellectual coercive.

No, I am not being intellectually coercive at all. I am correcting misstatements.

Quote:
You're admitting, that you don't "believe" in human rights either. That makes it coercive that you wouldn't "believe" in animal rights either.
Now THAT's a whole different issue.

Umm.... ok?

Quote:
I'm glad I could help you reach this conclusion. It's very different from what you started out with, namely your belief that you have rights as a human and that you support human's rights, such as your right to bear an arm (a right of humans, if not a "human right", which exists only in the USA).

I *didn't* change my mind. If you noticed, what I said was "I don't think that". Now, a lot of the matter is language and thought processes, our language and thought processes favor realism very heavily, which means that if you want to say something, I am very likely to have to mangle with a language that is realist, and thought processes of other people that are realist.

However, past statements of mine partially reveal this pre-existing attitude: "neither side has been presenting arguments. Neither side can.". *sigh* Look, I am just not going to deal with you. Ok?



Markie
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

30 Jan 2010, 4:47 pm

Awesomelyglorious, it seems to me, you seem to be not only unable to bring forward an argument for your position(s), as you keep repeating yourself, but unable to have a conversation per se, let alone participate in a discussion in a meaningful way. Having a conversation or a discussion means communicating in a reciprocal manner. You seem incapable of this. What you are doing is repeatedly broadcasting your thoughts like a radio station, like a jamming transmitter it seems here, without being able to react to or listen to what others, such as I, are saying.
I'm sorry if I or what I said has upset you. That was not my intention.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jan 2010, 5:52 pm

Markie wrote:
Awesomelyglorious, it seems to me, you seem to be not only unable to bring forward an argument for your position(s), as you keep repeating yourself, but unable to have a conversation per se, let alone participate in a discussion in a meaningful way. Having a conversation or a discussion means communicating in a reciprocal manner. You seem incapable of this. What you are doing is repeatedly broadcasting your thoughts like a radio station, like a jamming transmitter it seems here, without being able to react to or listen to what others, such as I, are saying.
I'm sorry if I or what I said has upset you. That was not my intention.

Umm.... what have I said?

"neither side has been presenting arguments. Neither side can."

Now, this seems perfectly valid.

*sigh* If you want me to attempt, then I'll do so.

1) It is legitimate to abort fetuses. (premise)
2) The underlying reason is that fetuses lack sufficient human characteristics. (premise)
3) Therefore, it is legitimate to kill creatures that are sufficiently lacking in human characteristics. (from 1 and 2)
4) Most animals are not human to a great extent. (premise)
5) Therefore it is legitimate to kill animals. (from 3 & 4)

1) Human societies are creations of humans for the sole purpose of promoting welfare of tribe members. (premise)
2) Only humans have sufficient capability to truly be members of human societies. (premise)
3) Therefore human societies have the sole purpose of promoting welfare of humans in those societies. (from 1 and 2)
4) Human welfare can be expressed in the satisfaction of human desires (premise)
5) Therefore human societies exist to allow satisfaction of human desires (from 3 and 4)
6) Desires to control the actions of other members of the tribe against their will are illegitimate unless major negative consequences are the result. (premise)
7) Therefore, if a member of the human society desires a non-human creature destroyed, then so long as there are no unusual negative consequences, it should be allowed. (from 5 & 6)

(please note that 3 is not a clear line on what constitutes a human society, only what sorts of beings can be a member. Also note that human societies are the only relevant ones for the question.)

How about this one then?

1) Ethics is the study of finding consistency in human standards of proper conduct. (premise)
2) Human standards of proper conduct are inconsistent by nature. (premise)
3) Therefore ethical arguments are all invalid. (from 1 and 2)
4) Arguments for and against animal rights are ethical arguments. (premise)
5) Arguments for and against animal rights are all invalid. (from 3 and 4)

So, ok, now I have created 2 reasonably solid arguments for killing animals, and one argument on how this whole debate is bunk. Are you satisfied?



Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

30 Jan 2010, 6:45 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Markie wrote:
Awesomelyglorious, it seems to me, you seem to be not only unable to bring forward an argument for your position(s), as you keep repeating yourself, but unable to have a conversation per se, let alone participate in a discussion in a meaningful way. Having a conversation or a discussion means communicating in a reciprocal manner. You seem incapable of this. What you are doing is repeatedly broadcasting your thoughts like a radio station, like a jamming transmitter it seems here, without being able to react to or listen to what others, such as I, are saying.
I'm sorry if I or what I said has upset you. That was not my intention.

Umm.... what have I said?

"neither side has been presenting arguments. Neither side can."

Now, this seems perfectly valid.

*sigh* If you want me to attempt, then I'll do so.

1) It is legitimate to abort fetuses. (premise)
2) The underlying reason is that fetuses lack sufficient human characteristics. (premise)
3) Therefore, it is legitimate to kill creatures that are sufficiently lacking in human characteristics. (from 1 and 2)
4) Most animals are not human to a great extent. (premise)
5) Therefore it is legitimate to kill animals. (from 3 & 4)

1) Human societies are creations of humans for the sole purpose of promoting welfare of tribe members. (premise)
2) Only humans have sufficient capability to truly be members of human societies. (premise)
3) Therefore human societies have the sole purpose of promoting welfare of humans in those societies. (from 1 and 2)
4) Human welfare can be expressed in the satisfaction of human desires (premise)
5) Therefore human societies exist to allow satisfaction of human desires (from 3 and 4)
6) Desires to control the actions of other members of the tribe against their will are illegitimate unless major negative consequences are the result. (premise)
7) Therefore, if a member of the human society desires a non-human creature destroyed, then so long as there are no unusual negative consequences, it should be allowed. (from 5 & 6)

(please note that 3 is not a clear line on what constitutes a human society, only what sorts of beings can be a member. Also note that human societies are the only relevant ones for the question.)

How about this one then?

1) Ethics is the study of finding consistency in human standards of proper conduct. (premise)
2) Human standards of proper conduct are inconsistent by nature. (premise)
3) Therefore ethical arguments are all invalid. (from 1 and 2)
4) Arguments for and against animal rights are ethical arguments. (premise)
5) Arguments for and against animal rights are all invalid. (from 3 and 4)

So, ok, now I have created 2 reasonably solid arguments for killing animals, and one argument on how this whole debate is bunk. Are you satisfied?

I'd pick a certain part of this apart, but I'm enjoying entertaining the notion your adversaries in this debate might employ reasoned argument themselves. :P



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jan 2010, 6:50 pm

Asmodeus wrote:
I'd pick a certain part of this apart, but I'm enjoying entertaining the notion your adversaries in this debate might employ reasoned argument themselves. :P

You can go right ahead. My last argument is a perfectly good argument saying that the first two are bunk, so I won't be insulted to any extent.



Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

30 Jan 2010, 7:47 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Asmodeus wrote:
I'd pick a certain part of this apart, but I'm enjoying entertaining the notion your adversaries in this debate might employ reasoned argument themselves. :P

You can go right ahead. My last argument is a perfectly good argument saying that the first two are bunk, so I won't be insulted to any extent.

Thanks, but I'm gonna hang back and see how this one turns out :)



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Jan 2010, 8:09 pm

Subhuman animals have no rights.

Silly Rabbit. Rights are for people.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Jan 2010, 8:17 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Subhuman animals have no rights.

Silly Rabbit. Rights are for people.

ruveyn


Considering the present status of society, once you remove the hubris there is nothing that can be considered subhuman unless you are thinking about the people in undersea craft in the navy. Even viruses can outwit our best antibiotics.



Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

30 Jan 2010, 8:17 pm

^ If that's true then it should go for the subhuman humans also, and since the subhuman humans get to have rights, so should the subhuman animals.



Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

31 Jan 2010, 2:01 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Thirdly, if the world really does work in a certain manner, then what's the point in acting against such issues? You won't get brownie points, and it might even be that you are the absurd one for taking such a stand.

Well, it just feels wrong for me, I'm sorry for creatures who are hurt - so I don't do it. I don't see it as something I must do, and I feel bad for the animals being killed - so I refrain from eating them. What's absurd about that?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Jan 2010, 2:09 am

Omerik wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Thirdly, if the world really does work in a certain manner, then what's the point in acting against such issues? You won't get brownie points, and it might even be that you are the absurd one for taking such a stand.

Well, it just feels wrong for me, I'm sorry for creatures who are hurt - so I don't do it. I don't see it as something I must do, and I feel bad for the animals being killed - so I refrain from eating them. What's absurd about that?


There's nothing wrong about it. It might be that meat eating would become less popular if people had to kill what they ate but I doubt it. A good many people love to kill things and some even enjoy making other things suffer. You and I are different.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

31 Jan 2010, 2:22 am

Sand wrote:
There's nothing wrong about it. It might be that meat eating would become less popular if people had to kill what they ate but I doubt it. A good many people love to kill things and some even enjoy making other things suffer. You and I are different.

People hunt as a hobby. So...... yeah, I think your point has empirical confirmation.



Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

31 Jan 2010, 2:25 am

My friend and her family hunt deer and rabbit, mostly, not for sport but for food.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Jan 2010, 2:34 am

Meadow wrote:
My friend and her family hunt deer and rabbit, mostly, not for sport but for food.


I take it then that the actual killing is emotionally distasteful to them.