i was just having a serious discussion with my boyfriend about humans dying and the impact it causes on life. i said "one thing i dont understand.... how can a meat eater cry about a human dying.... and then sit down to a steak?" i just dont understand!
heres the difference between us.
i am a life long vegan. i have never consumed animal flesh. i have the same amount of compassion to human life to that of an animals life.
he is a life long meat eater, recently working towards being vegan. he sees human life value to be greater than animal life value.
am i off my rocker or do you feel that animal life is equally as valuable as human life?
Permalink Reply by Bee on dr.wilco thank you for your perspectives!
there is so much effort put into brainwashing i sometimes wonder how anything meaningful and compassionate gets done in the world.
i also love that story :)
thank you thank you! i am very positive and optimistic that his ability to see the beauty of nature and life will blossom. some people only need to be exposed to an alternative view than one that they are accustomed to :)
take care
Permalink Reply by Dharma on I agree with you BigG. equal and in many cases greater than human life. e.g. oorangutans and all endangered animals are in my opinion greater value than our own
Permalink Reply by Dharma on unless the life was of someone that could stop or help greatly boost the population of the endangered animals
Permalink Reply by pradtf on nathan, i'm replying to your post from here:
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:2279504
we've run out of replies.
then you don't even respond to what I was quoting you for.
yes i did respond. i corrected your misquoting by putting in the parts you had left out:
i call them immature because they are intended to force one of two alternatives in an attempt to discredit the opponent.
you are trying to force one of two alternatives with your scenario:
1. save either baby or kitten
2. save either baby or kitten with a coin toss
You keep trying to imply that my scenario fits your "hallucinatory hypothetical" when it does not.
i've just shown you why it fits the hallucinatory hypothetical scenario. you are forcing the choices on the person and rejecting solutions they come up with. this is the false dilemma fallacy.
The two intents are essentially the same because both have the goal of winning the argument. You discredit the opponent in an attempt to win the argument.
no. you don't win an argument by discrediting your opponent. you win an argument by making it both logically valid and sound.
You said that you were not accusing me of trying to win the argument, but instead of trying to discredit an opponent.
did i really? can you show me exactly where i said that, nathan. copy and paste it and provide the link, please.
possibly, you are forgetting what you wrote and thinking that i wrote it:
"It's not that you're trying to win an argument, it's that you're trying to discredit an opponent." That's basically what you're saying, and it sounds retarded.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:2279131
however, if you do find where i accuse you of trying to discredit you opponent let me know, because i'm starting to wonder about whether my initial assessment was insufficient.
may be you forgot what i wrote here:
no you misunderstand me. i'm not saying you are trying to discredit anyone.
so, i'm not accusing you of anything other than perhaps not examining this scenario to its proper extent which is why i provided you with the links i did.
now it's bad enough that you try to quote me and missssspelll what is supposedly my stuff, but i don't see why you are claiming that i said you were trying to discredit anyone (other than me of course :D), when i didn't ... yet.
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by Nathan on did i really? can you show me exactly where i said that, nathan. copy and paste it and provide the link, please.
You called my question "immature". Then you said this:
i call them immature because they are intended to force one of two alternatives in an attempt to discredit the opponent.
Either way, I have nothing left to say. Regardless of what was said previously, you obviously are now saying that I was not trying to discredit anyone. My point that you were wrong to call the question "immature" is thus established. Furthermore, I have shown that the question does not fit your "hallucinatory hypothetical" because it provides a non-incriminating choice rather than a no-win. That is all I wanted.
Permalink Reply by pradtf on again nathan, you are not quoting me properly.
i said your scenario is immature and i explained why several times - it is a fallacy of false dilemma.
you obviously are now saying that I was not trying to discredit anyone
well you may not be, but your scenario is. that's why i suggested you explore your scenario further and provided the link for it.
my point that you were wrong to call the question "immature" is established.
your scenario is still immature and i was not wrong to call it as such.
besides, it's not really your scenario since it's pretty standard fare so i suppose you don't really have to take credit for its iniquities. :D
I have shown that the question does not fit your "hallucinatory hypothetical" because it provides a non-incriminating choice rather than a no-win.
your scenario is typical of the hallucinatory hypothetical precisely because it does not offer anything other than the no-win. that's why both bee, chris and the various examples offered in the link show you other ways to answer it. you (in the general sense), just don't want to accept them because doing so will spoil the fun of discreditation.
That is all I wanted.
but you didn't get what you wanted, nathan. :D
anyway, if you indeed have nothing left to say, i won't say anymore either to you on this matter. we've sufficiently hijacked this thread, though it's important to expose false dilemma for what it is.
it's been mostly an enjoyable exchange from my part and i thank you for making it possible.
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by Nathan on Prad, I got what I wanted. All you do is say that my question is a cookie cutter type then try to apply all the characteristics of that cookie cutter to it.
My question was not false dilemma because it is not a no-win. I've said that and explained it over and over. I am tired of you not getting it and posting these monster blocks of text and continuously changing your words. If you can't say what you mean in a few sentences, I think that you don't really have anything to say.
Permalink Reply by pradtf on My question was not false dilemma because it is not a no-win. I've said that and explained it over and over.
well you don't need to anymore, nathan. ;)
though you may want to review why your scenario is false dilemma at a more suitable point in time.
bye for now and thx again for the discussion.
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by Nathan on You've gone from "immature hallucinatory hypothetical" to false dilemma. But regardless, you must realize that a generalized philosophical ideal cannot be questioned with a specific real-world example, which you seem to want. By your logic any hypothetical question is a false dilemma, and that's bad logic.
While most people (including myself) would probably argue philosophically for the equality of life, in a situation where it really mattered I think that their actions would not reflect their stated beliefs. That, I think, is why the question bothers you, and why you refrain from answering it. In fact let's even assume it's a no-win flawed hypothetical. Then there must be something inside you that thinks that flipping a coin is wrong or bad (in fact you said that picking the coin is anti-human), and that is precisely the emotion I am bringing into question. Why do you feel it, if it isn't valid?
Permalink Reply by pradtf on You've gone from "immature hallucinatory hypothetical" to false dilemma. But regardless, you must realize that a generalized philosophical ideal cannot be questioned with a specific real-world example. .
no nathan - you don't quite understand how the pieces fit together, so i'm glad you asked the question.
false dilemma is a specific fallacy which offers a limited number of options by deliberate design (not reality). the "immature hallucinatory hypothetical" is an example of a typical false dilemma.
By your logic any hypothetical question is a false dilemma, and that's bad logic
here's an example of a hypothetical that is not a false dilemma - using your scenario mostly:
you have a kitten and a baby lying on railroad tracks.
are you going to walk away?
are you going to save the baby or the kitten?
or can you find a way to save both somehow?
what are you able to do under the circumstances and how?
that way the person isn't trapped in a potentially discreditable fashion - especially considering we can't evaluate options the situation offers since we aren't actually there.
do you see the difference?
do you see why my example isn't a false dilemma?
it offers creative possibilities instead of railroading the person. :D
that's why bee and chris created hypothetical options in response to your hypothetical scenario. they didn't refrain from answering your question, you just didn't like the answer you deservedly got.
in a situation where it really mattered I think that their actions would not reflect their stated beliefs
well that's a whole different topic likely worth discussing too because people sometimes have difficulty for various reasons to live up to their beliefs, though they can come pretty close.
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by Nathan on Yes, prad, I see the difference, but your hypothetical is also useless because it's way too broad and doesn't explore anything. You don't even define what the "circumstances" are. How about I go to great lengths to design a valid situation where you could only save one or the other, or leave it up to chance. Or I could just ask it the way I did and you could take off your fallacious argument goggles and think about it for a second. I didn't even care if people answered the question; it was only there to inspire thought.
well that's a whole different topic likely worth discussing too because people sometimes have difficulty for various reasons to live up to their beliefs, though they can come pretty close.
Well I'm glad you finally realized that, since it was the entire purpose of my question. Why do you feel that flipping a coin is bad?
Permalink Reply by pradtf on nathan, i didn't define circumstances simply for brevity. in a hypothetical situation one can easily define some circumstances. however, one should not limit the reasonable creative powers an individual may employ.
your hypothetical is also useless because it's way too broad and doesn't explore anything
sure it does. it allows a person to figure out whether he/she
doesn't give a damn about either
values a baby
values a kitten
values both
so that's what makes the scenario a fair one. no need to force unnecessary restrictions.
How about I go to great lengths to design a valid situation where you could only save one or the other, or leave it up to chance.
well i think your going to great lengths to devise a situation where you can save only one or the other is exactly why you have false dilemma. you seem to think that has validity for some reason even though it's a hypothetical in the first place.
if you are going to make things up, then you need to grant the same freedom of creativity to the other person.
flipping the coin doesn't change anything that's why it is bad and your situation is a false dilemma. it is not the same as having difficulty living up to one's beliefs because you are being forced into a hypothetical situation by some contrivance.
in real life, you may or may not be able to live up to your belief depending on the resources you have available, but if even if you don't have the resources, you can still make an attempt to acquire them. your scenario doesn't offer these options which is why it is a false dilemma.
in friendship,
prad
© 2013 Created by TheBananaGirl.
Powered by
