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 Nathan on Omg prad.
- value the baby or value the kitty
or
- value neither over the other, but still choose one
Wrong. Flipping a coin is not choosing one or the other. The choices are a) deliberately pick one or b) don't. Flipping a coin says "It doesn't matter to me which one gets saved. I'll leave it up to chance."
3. toss coin to save one or the other -> false to humans because you don't value humans more (the other side exists here too, of course)
That is not false to humans. That's impartial. You are making that argument, not me. I clearly imply that I view flipping the coin as considering both lives equally valuable.
if you are going to play with hypotheticals, then it's only fair that you allow your victim the same courtesy.
My victim? There you go again, implying that I view the OP as some sort of opponent.
Permalink Reply by pradtf on Wrong. Flipping a coin is not choosing one or the other. The choices are a) deliberately pick one or b) don't. Flipping a coin says "It doesn't matter to me which one gets saved. I'll leave it up to chance."
but nathan, don't you see that saving one or the other by chance still ends up choosing one or the other?
That is not false to humans. That's impartial. You are making that argument, not me. I clearly imply that I view flipping the coin as considering both lives equally valuable.
that's why i wrote:
(the other side exists here too, of course)
My victim? There you go again, implying that I view the OP as some sort of opponent.
it's not the op nathan. it's anyone who is presented with these immature scenarios.
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by The Humane Hominid on 1. It does not ask you to choose between the human and the animal. It only asks if you would not care to distinguish between the two.
I think I can settle this. If "flipping coin" = "not valuing one over the other," then so does "save them both."
Hence, "save them both" is a valid answer to your question, since it does not value one over the other.
Permalink Reply by Nathan on Let me requote what I quoted before:
i call them immature because they are intended to force one of two alternatives in an attempt to discredit the opponent.
And now I'll quote what you just said:
no you misunderstand me. i'm not saying you are trying to discredit anyone. if that had been my intent, i would have called you on it specifically
So, I misunderstand that you called my question immature, then you say you call questions immature "because they are intented...to discredit the opponent." Gee, maybe I misunderstood you because it's exactly what you wrote.
And furthermore, that was a sidebar of my post. So even if I had misunderstood you, it wouldn't really have mattered. The main point was that you said (my words) "It's not that you're trying to win an argument, it's that you're trying to discredit an opponent." That is absolutely retarded because those two intentions are essentially the same thing. You said it solely to try to be right and you could not have possibly been trying to put that forth as a valid argument.
Permalink Reply by pradtf on So, I misunderstand that you called my question immature, then you say you call questions immature "because they are intented...to discredit the opponent." Gee, maybe I misunderstood you because it's exactly what you wrote.
really nathan! if you are going to write exactly what i wrote, why don't you copy and paste it? where have i spelled 'intended' as 'intented'? also, it would be more honest to put the actual statement down the way it was written rather than type up stuff yourself. here i'll get the thing for you:
i call them immature because they are intended to force one of two alternatives in an attempt to discredit the opponent.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:2279178
(you did quote me correctly in this post, so i don't see why you mangle it here).
"It's not that you're trying to win an argument, it's that you're trying to discredit an opponent." That is absolutely retarded because those two intentions are essentially the same thing.
well no they're not.
winning an argument requires that one uses proper reasoning that is logically valid as well as sound.
discrediting an opponent can be done without even producing an argument. some people try to do it with various outbursts like:
That is absolutely retarded
please stop defending your stupid comments
you are not using the full capacity of your brain
I can't take this stupidity
you are either stupid or being stubborn
i think you get the general idea.
these are known as ad hominem fallacies essentially. they don't actually add strength to the argument. they are an attempt to discredit the individual you are talking to by attributing various features to them.
the baby/kitten scenario is, as i explained, another form of fallacy again with the intent of forcing the individual into unpleasant territory. it is not an argument, but an attempt at discreditation.
such tactics are not necessary in a civil discussion.
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by Nathan on edit:
I'm going to let everything you just said go because there wasn't much substance there.
Ok, so I have explained precisely why my question does not meet the criteria of a "hallucinatory hypothetical" and we have established that you were wrong to call it "immature" because I had no opponent and furthermore that my question was not an attempt at discreditation because the question gave a choice that allowed the OP to retain integrity.
What is left to discuss?
Permalink Reply by Karen on I don't believe we are more valuable, but it's more along the lines of in a jet under decompression: "put your oxygen mask on first, before you place it on your loved ones." It stands to reason, that we would put humans first, but usually when people say "people first" they actually mean people only and use the interference mechanism of helping other species only after every last human is out of harm; they intuitively know there will never be a time when that will happen, so they can continue in their ignorance.
Permalink Reply by pradtf on greetings karen! and welcome to 30bad!
i see you came here as a result of those 'critics'! i'm glad we've been so highly recommended!
this is a good point:
usually when people say "people first" they actually mean people only and use the interference mechanism of helping other species only after every last human is out of harm
interestingly enough, there seem to be no moral imperatives for this sort of 'species clustering'.
furthermore, it certainly isn't universal since members of various species (including human) are known to help other species (even at the risk of their own lives in some cases).
you may enjoy this video:
kel shows how this sort of 'bigotry' is really no different than racism or misogyny:
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:447100
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by Karen on Hi Prad, thanks!
The video isn't buffering for me at the moment (thanks to my dump Windows computer - it's only dual-core and 4gb memory after all - argh!), but I wonder if these cases of iner-species altruism is due to those individuals having been exposed via the "Critical period of socialization".
As an aside, I have a hunch that any person who was exposed to a pet via their family or friends' ends up with severe cognitive dissonance with regard to farm animals, and that is why they seem to strike at vegans like they have a coiled spring of inner guilt in them.
And now I'll go watch that video on my roku...
Permalink Reply by pradtf on ah yes, karen!
you have my sympathy regarding windoze though you'll likely get better performance if you switch to linux. we have my son's godfather working off a 700Hz machine (from value village) upstairs and things work pretty well.
the other problem is likely with all the gizmos on 30bad which can at times slow things down.
As an aside, I have a hunch that any person who was exposed to a pet via their family or friends' ends up with severe cognitive dissonance with regard to farm animals, and that is why they seem to strike at vegans like they have a coiled spring of inner guilt in them.
i think you are right. that's why the question is so often asked as to why one is a pet and the other is dinner, no doubt.
hope you get to see the video - the quality isn't the best, but the substance is astonishing!
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by Justin White on Your perspective seems very similar to Peter Singer. He is an atheist, sees humans and animals as being equivalent, and from his reasoning supports infanticide, a sort of trial run with your children for the first 3 months. This seems to be the dark side of the animal rights ethics movement. By creating equivalence between animals and humans, things that would normally be abhorrent to most people are on the discussion table (eugenics, forced population control etc ). There are certain actions that create the best outcome for the greatest number of beings in the world which are nonetheless immoral when viewed in isolation. I think we should be skeptical of intellectual movements that have hidden political agendas. What sort of society are they proposing ? I see such thinking leading to loss of freedom, larger government and a move towards socialism.
Permalink Reply by pradtf on hi again justin! hope you found the links i put on your paleo thread helpful.
i don't know who you are replying to (courtesy of this ning dating service forum structure), but i wanted to point out that when you say:
Your perspective seems very similar to Peter Singer
you may want to realize that it is actually your statements here:http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:2290869
which are very singerian. being a utilitarian, he presented, back in the 1970s (animal liberation), the same argument of humans 'enjoying' life more and therefore possibly having lives of greater value.
while i don't think some of singer's axioms are correct, we can still discuss this idea you put forth of the 'dark side of animal rights' - since there's nothing dark about it. animal-human equivalence through 'due consideration' is a most sensible approach to follow.
furthermore, we definitely need a loss of freedom, forced pop control and significant moves towards socialism in many areas though larger government is only one way to accomplish this.
look forward to discussing these matters with you as well as your aforementioned post, though at your convenience. i know you may be busy hammering the crapaleos on youtube, so i don't want to split your attention.
in friendship,
prad
Lindsay replied to Jeanne Giguiere's discussion Need a little support...doctors recommend a C-Section in the group Peaceful Parenting
© 2013 Created by TheBananaGirl.
Powered by
