CF#5: Sorry for making jokes on sensitive issue. I think it was too much. Also I hate that I am so egotistic and it is often revealed unintentionally, like bad smell.
Register for free to enjoy the full benefits.
Find out more about the NEW, drastically improved site and forum!
market for dead bodies (such as there was in the past
To me, someone saying that a certain concept is "right" is completely abhorrent.
I have seldom seen a friendly and heated debate. Effective argument tactics often involve logical traps. When successful, they often causes resentments, which usually bring up personal attacks.this debate (or "fight") should always be held at a philosophical and intellectual level, and never personal.
I have seldom seen a friendly and heated debate
Effective argument tactics often involve logical traps.
When successful, they often causes resentments, which usually bring up personal attacks.
Like me in what way? o.oWe need more people like you.
I see no objective moral difference, or even any clear line of definition, between action and inaction. If I see a drowning child and ignore her, when she dies she's just as dead as if I had pushed her in the water myself. So if we're into quotes, may I add this (probably fake) one?one's only true individual responsibility is to not cause or condone any type of injustice
How so?much of what they do is actually incremental rights
What is a valid reason for gaining ego, then?No one should gain ego from influencing me...
Sorry, I didn't mean exactly like. Those just had the most contrast, were the most dramatic, maybe? It gives you an idea of my posting style, perhaps There were some people who hated my ideas like that, and others who just read and considered them, and at no point had anything against me (those were pretty rare too...).Nah, not like that!
Or many individuals prioritized over another? Painism is one moral standard (or whatever) with a basis on the subjective universe thing of sentient beings. Minds do not "stack." It's interesting.I think utilitarianism is bad, because every individual is important and has value, and never should one individual be prioritized over another
I think you're confusing it with the utilitarian position vs the absolute rights position. Welfarists are often NOT utilitarian. If a utilitarian reasoned strictly logically, they'd be out of the AW camp and in...the AL camp? *shrug*That's what I see as being the welfare position. Versus the rights position where no harm is ever alright.
Why trivialize the most important, or rather the only important, thing in existence? If it doesn't matter all that much, how much does it matter if ALL individuals are murdered, much less the smaller group?And as a relativist utilitarian- I shrug and say "we're going the same place" while the rights people tend to gasp in horror.
I'm guessing you have some sort of personal standard on what counts as "productively"?I'm more disturbed by my body NOT being used productively after my death than the reverse.
Yw, and remember, my philosophy student friend's tail does wag the dogThanks for pointing me towards Haidt Weatherlight! Interesting stuff.
If reasoning is fallacious, point it out. If statement is opinion or objective false, point it out. Stick to the point. Unless you don't mind flame-fests, though you can stick to the point and still add that.I have seldom seen a friendly and heated debate. Effective argument tactics often involve logical traps. When successful, they often causes resentments, which usually bring up personal attacks.
I'm guilty of speciesism against humans. I ALWAYS favor the animal.
Like me in what way?
I think people must forget that human beings are simply another species of animal. Perhaps more despicable on many levels, than other species, but still an animal.I'm guilty of speciesism against humans. I ALWAYS favor the animal.
There's a huge distinction between injustices caused by humans and those caused by nature.
The AW argument would have been more along the lines of putting the fish in bigger bowls or something inane and virtually meaningless like that.
You mean animal liberation? I'm not sure I see a huge distinction between AR and AL.
By holding the entire human species accountable for the injustices committed by *most* but *not all* people, I'm generalizing against people in a way that I condemn others for generalizing against animals. I suppose this can be viewed as a form of affirmative action, but is it right or wrong?
I think my feelings are representative of many vegans, whether they're willing to admit it or not
Humans are animals.
Amoral, then?I didn't say it's moral.
Facing how?Where does the actual perpetrator begin facing responsibility?
Actually, it IS the "simple responsibility as defined above."It has no bearing on the simple responsibility as defined above.
How do you reconcile that with this?And again, the actual murderer is the one who is truly responsible - not any witnesses who played no role in the crime other than inaction.
Who is the actual murderer of the veal calf that someone ate? The slaughterhouse employee? How about the dog being killed in a pound run by greedy and callous management, a dog who went through a series of owners--some abusive, some hiring abusive "professionals," some neglecting nutritional needs, all of which contributed to more "unadoptability"--and was part of an accidental litter sired by a dog who was allowed to roam or was abandoned? Just the tech with the needle? Obviously, people who buy from breeders and pet stores, people who are puppy millers and BYBs and pet store owners themselves, none of them are directly "responsible," except perhaps the ones who created and handled the individual dog, right?that's in effect condoning the injustice of the crime being committed, and in that case, you would be responsible in my opinion
Hmm I'd like to know your results for (broken link removed)