NationStates Jolt Archive

Mary Beth Sweetland (? I think that's how it's spelled), senior vice-president of PETA, is also an insulin user. As are many members of PETA. PETA is full of hypocricy.

I feel that it is ironic that animal rights activists sometimes care more about animal rights than human rights...

(I'm talking about it on a general POV)

Nah it's a pretty accurate assertion. On the better note I ate a nice piece of chicken today and I had some chicken yesterday too. The day before that I had some pig. Before that I think it was more chicken (hmm chicken kick this week). Tomorrow I plan on eating some cow.

Animal rights activists do a great job of leaving me extra animal to eat because they don't. So I'll raise a glass to their whateverness and thank them for leaving that extra piece of steak for me and my meat loving ass.

Can you at least agree that PETA supports and endorses criminal actions?

Yes.

Rights stop when your face starts as some people are wont to say. As to the law, the law exists to provide order and a framework for that justice. If you want to toss it out for a particular moral crusade, then you have no grounds to argue against ANY form of moral crusade, be it bombing hospitals, killing doctors, believers of a different faith, women by their dress, ethnic makeup or just plain culling the stupid.

That's transparently stupid, and you essentially admit as much.

Your example doesn't work for a very simple reason. Jews were human and sapient.

Oh, but wait... shouldn't you be attacking the people who sheltered Jews for violating the law for their particular crusade?

Clearly that leads inevitably to bombing abortion clinics....

:rolleyes:

The only non-humans that appear to have sapiency are monkeys and dolphins.

So do you think criminal actions to protect monkeys and dolphins are justifiable?

PETA and ALF makes no distinction.

As indeed they should not. Your suffering doesn't magically become worthy of higher consideration because you happen to be sapient.

Laws exist as part of a sapient social construct.

So?

If by principles you mean the principle of causing destruction ignorant of the consequences of their actions, then maybe.

No... I mean principles like the notion that animals deserve equal moral consideration to humans.

Rights are a human construct. Application to of said rights animals is the thinking of the delusional.

Rights aren't just a human construct. They are a construct of specific humans--humans capable of a certain level of thinking.

Are we entitled to torture and abuse infants because they don't comprehend the concept of "rights"?

There is animal cruelty

Ah, but why should you care? Is not morality, with its notions of unacceptable cruelty, a human construct too?

Human slavery came in many forms. American slavery, of which I believe you are referring to, was one of the worst kinds available. In Hellenic cultures, the culture of slavery certainly had them operating at much better standards of living and importance than American ideas of human chattel.

This is entirely immaterial to my point.

And most importantly, you are now equating humans, and human laws, to animals.

It helps to actually follow the discussion.

What you said was: "Let's put it this way. How do you know it was "horrible conditions"? Are you a fish? A mink perhaps? You automatically assume."

My reply concerned your assumption that in order to know that beings suffer from "horrible conditions", we must actually experience it directly.

It had nothing to do with granting, or not granting, moral equality to animals.

If so, you cannot support PETA's advocacy of euthanizing animals as by your standards, they are now committing mass murder.

There are certain considerations that apply to painlessly killing humans that do not apply to most non-human animals--most importantly, our abundance of long-term future-oriented preferences.

Because meat would be cannibalism then.

And this is an argument against the principle how?

And mass agriculture harvesting results in the death of many field animals.

Driving cars results in the death of many humans.

See how ludicrous it is?

No.

So. A director of PETA doesn't count as PETA's decision making now?

Again: you really should actually follow the discussion.

I was talking about the two specific incidents you linked to: the release of the fish and the release of the minks. Not about "animal liberations" generally.

Ergo, PETA was founded on the hypocrisy of a woman who should have euthanized herself if she wanted to walk the talk.

No one fulfills all their moral obligations. And the hypocrisy of its founder has little bearing on the organization itself.

But animal liberationists don't.

Um, yes, they do.

Because they're attention whores.

And euthanizing animals unnecessarily has what exactly to do with that?

People who believe that in order to 'save something', they must destroy it.

If this is in fact their position--which is not clear--they are not "hypocrites" at all. They have a consistent principle, something to the effect of "it is better for animals to be euthanized than to be imprisoned," and you simply disagree with it.

And they do it because slaughtered animals gives them ammunition for their propaganda purposes.

How does PETA euthanizing animals give anyone but PETA opponents ammunition for propaganda purposes?

They don't need to fabricate mass animal killing... there are plenty of real cases to use.

But they did it anyway. Why? Because they thought they wouldn't get caught. And because they got greedy.

Yes, yes, they have an obvious motive: monetary profit.

What's PETA's?

You have this weird idea that people aren't capable of saying one thing, believing it, and doing another while still holding that belief.

To the contrary, I'm sure this is possible.

I just want to know their motive.

You support PETA. I am simply applying their tactics and justifications in ways that directly effect you.

No, you're not. Your examples are absurd, and I've pointed out why every time you've provided them.

At some point I start to wonder whether you're interested in rational discussion at all, or simply in spewing nonsense of vague relevance.

And I argue that they are.

Obviously.

And I note you haven't answered my question about cancer. Would you wait until it's terminal before having it treated?

Only we have no indication that animal liberationists are inclined to go the way of al-Qaeda. Their attacks are carefully targeted instead of indiscriminate, and are overwhelmingly directed against property rather than people.

Then you should have said so at the very beginning.

Sorry, no... I don't need to provide every nuance of my position on something whenever I make a point on the general subject.

No, killing animals in gruesome ways, and then accusing others of doing so using footage of what they did as 'proof'.

And when did they do this? Everything you've posted has been about euthanasia.

Despite PETA's president's endorsements?

Of what? Euthanizing animals who are abused when the alternative is letting the abuse continue? That's a different subject entirely.

Sure, I'm culling human hypocrisy, making it a better species for everyone in the planet.

Burning down my house doesn't decrease human hypocrisy, and human hypocrisy is not an act meriting burning down a house.

There's my justification. It's certainly no worse than PETA's.

No, PETA's justifications actually make sense.

Law is a human construct. It would thereby apply to humans and human actions, not animals.

That doesn't follow. Why must the creators of something be its only subjects?

Attempting to apply human law to animals at its logical extreme would create a society that would starve to death in short order. Carnivores would be prevented from eating, herbivore populations would quickly overpopulate the area and strip it of all consumable foods and starve to death.

Obviously we can't just take human laws and apply them as they are to non-human animals. But no one proposes doing that, so....

But you're making an argument for some great moral judge to allow for 'justifiable' ignorance of law in order to cause wanton destruction.

If it is justified, it is not wanton. And when did I mention any "great moral judge"?

You've already granted that in some circumstances violating the law is justifiable, anyway.

According to you maybe. But according to the ones doing the sawing? Probably very good ones. Your disagreement with it is inconsequential.

No... but if I am actually right and it is a bad standard, that is not (morally) inconsequential at all.

There are plenty of people who believe very fervently that (say) evolution is false. The fervency of their belief does not make it any more sound.

Okay, here's the post where he says he's not a vegetarian even though he thinks it's moral to be one. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11842688&postcount=18)

Notice the date.

Not naturally. Outside help in the form of medicine would have let you survive.

As far as the species on this planet are concerned we're physically weak. The only advantage we have that has let us rise to being the dominant species on this planet is our intelligence. You're suggesting that we don't use it. You're ridiculing those with genetic defects for being weak, while at the same time saying that we weaken our entire species by holding back from using the technology that we've developed and the knowledge that we've gained even though it's a lot of who we are as a species and it's the thing that has got us where we are.

That's transparently stupid, and you essentially admit as much.


In what manner? Your argument is valid for only one cause and not the other, which uses the same reasoning process?


Oh, but wait... shouldn't you be attacking the people who sheltered Jews for violating the law for their particular crusade?

Clearly that leads inevitably to bombing abortion clinics....

:rolleyes:

I make the distinction between sapience, species type and where the application of justice, again a human concept, would apply. You don't apparently.


So do you think criminal actions to protect monkeys and dolphins are justifiable?

Not at all. Unfortunately for them, despite indications of sapience, human laws and concepts of justice would apply to humans.


As indeed they should not. Your suffering doesn't magically become worthy of higher consideration because you happen to be sapient.


So you're a vegan? Wear only nylon? Never use medicines?


So?


It's application outside of that construct is pure arrogance. Nothing more.


No... I mean principles like the notion that animals deserve equal moral consideration to humans.

Here's the hypocritical part. Earlier, you mentioned testing of animals specifically for medical research. And yet, equal moral consideration would preclude their testing. Or did you mean that it was specifically for PETA?

If so, it's still hypocritical. Ingrid Newkirk uses the fruits of animal research and harvesting to extend her life.


Rights aren't just a human construct. They are a construct of specific humans--humans capable of a certain level of thinking.

Are we entitled to torture and abuse infants because they don't comprehend the concept of "rights"?

Ah, but why should you care? Is not morality, with its notions of unacceptable cruelty, a human construct too?

Species separation. I mentioned a human construct because it was specifically created to apply to humans. Legal consideration for animals as it currently stands puts them on a lower scale than humans.

Or are you proposing that if a rabid wolverine killed several people, it should be taken to court?

In reality, the wolverine would be tracked down and shot. If a human did it, he would be taken to court, sentenced and convicted. The wolverine never got a trial.

So, where do these animal rights start hmm? And where do they stop?


This is entirely immaterial to my point.


It certainly is not. You mentioned slavery as a point of injustice. The binding of labor to a master. I point out that depending on its application, said injustice might not very well exist.

But if you persist, I assume you would argue against the use of animal labor by third world farmers, and would rather they starve to death.


It helps to actually follow the discussion.

What you said was: "Let's put it this way. How do you know it was "horrible conditions"? Are you a fish? A mink perhaps? You automatically assume."

My reply concerned your assumption that in order to know that beings suffer from "horrible conditions", we must actually experience it directly.

It had nothing to do with granting, or not granting, moral equality to animals.


Horrible conditions vary from species to species. I'm sure a human would find conditions that deep sea corals that grow by thermal vents to be horrible for said human. But did they think to ask the coral? Certainly not.

It's pure arrogance to apply human ideas of comfort to animals and expect it to override natural environments.

As to your assumption, you were never at either farm were you? And yet, you can throw around "horrible conditions" so easily. Where is your proof of that?


There are certain considerations that apply to painlessly killing humans that do not apply to most non-human animals--most importantly, our abundance of long-term future-oriented preferences.

Uh huh. You really missed the point didn't you? The point was that PETA wants to accord animals greater rights than humans, of which a particular human right is not to be killed without the law having a say in it. PETA however, freely admits to, and its leadership advocates, killing animals. See the disconnect?


Driving cars results in the death of many humans.


But we don't ban cars now do we? They're too convenient. Just like animal farms. And medical research on animals. And any number of assorted means to support current human society that involves animals.

But then suddenly, you want to take away one of those supports.


No.


Well that's a problem with blinkered vision usually. And doublethink.


Again: you really should actually follow the discussion.

I was talking about the two specific incidents you linked to: the release of the fish and the release of the minks. Not about "animal liberations" generally.


Damnit, the incidents were done by animal liberationists and were practically doing everything the director espoused. How are they not linked in idealogy?


No one fulfills all their moral obligations. And the hypocrisy of its founder has little bearing on the organization itself.

Uh huh. Like how GW Bush has little bearing on the government mismanagement itself hmm? Or how Osama Bin Laden has little bearing on Al Qaeda before the Afghani invasion. Or how Stalin has little bearing on how the Soviet Union did away with its 'dissidents'.

Ingrid Newkirk is both founder and leader of PETA. What she does has bearing on her organization as a whole.


Um, yes, they do.


So how do you explain them releasing animals into the wild that are not suited to survive in them? Or in cities where they would be considered pests and shot?


And euthanizing animals unnecessarily has what exactly to do with that?

For attention whoring? They don't euthanize them. They butcher them, usually in messy ways. Then they accuse their targets of doing that sort of butchering on an industrial scale.


If this is in fact their position--which is not clear--they are not "hypocrites" at all. They have a consistent principle, something to the effect of "it is better for animals to be euthanized than to be imprisoned," and you simply disagree with it.

It's not consistent when they also do things like "liberating" them into environments they quickly die in.


How does PETA euthanizing animals give anyone but PETA opponents ammunition for propaganda purposes?

They don't need to fabricate mass animal killing... there are plenty of real cases to use.


Because the mass scale operations are done in too clinical a fashion, and generally not messy enough, for PETA to make their propaganda on. They've been caught on this before. Butchering animals in extremely gruesome ways and claiming it to be the handiwork of their targets.


What's PETA's?

To the contrary, I'm sure this is possible.

I just want to know their motive.


Attention, recruits and money. The more people they brainwash with their fake propaganda, the more people are likely to support their cause with money and members.


No, you're not. Your examples are absurd, and I've pointed out why every time you've provided them.

No more absurd than the organization you are defending.


Only we have no indication that animal liberationists are inclined to go the way of al-Qaeda. Their attacks are carefully targeted instead of indiscriminate, and are overwhelmingly directed against property rather than people.


FBI analysis provided in the earlier links show a hardening of attitudes by ALF which has links to PETA. This hardening also includes a widening of scope from property to people.

You can ignore precautionary methods if you want, but don't come crying to me when PETA funded ALF members start bombing people.


Sorry, no... I don't need to provide every nuance of my position on something whenever I make a point on the general subject.


You don't need to, but a clear position helps.


And when did they do this? Everything you've posted has been about euthanasia.


http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm


1964: Film of a seal being skinned alive is used by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to vilify Canadian sealers, and is screened on CBC television. Following a public outcry and investigation, the man in the film, Gus Poirier of Prince Edward Island, signs an affidavit declaring that he was "employed by a group of photographers ... to skin a large seal for the film. I solemnly swear before witnesses that I was asked to torment the said seal and not to use a [club], but just to use a knife to carry out this operation, where in normal practice a [club] is used to first kill the seals before skinning them." A Federal Standing Committee castigated CBC "for not enquiring into its accuracy before screening," but the damage had been done.

1972: The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping produces a film entitled They Take So Long to Die. Scenes of animals suffering horribly in inappropriate traps are subsequently aired on CBS television. It is later learned that the animals had actually been caught in the wild and released into a compound to be trapped and filmed at leisure.


Mid-1980s: Greenpeace Australia distributes film of two men mutilating live kangaroos as part of a campaign to ban 'roo products in Europe. Greenpeace only withdraws the film after a court convicts the men for breaking the law, and concludes that they were paid to do so by the film crew.

1997 - 2003: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals releases edited videotape of a facility in Illinois which shows acts of cruelty to foxes, plus electrocution of foxes, a method of euthanasia not approved in Illinois. PeTA claims the footage depicts "modern fur farms" in the US, and complains about lack of regulation.


They're lying hypocrites.


Of what? Euthanizing animals who are abused when the alternative is letting the abuse continue? That's a different subject entirely.

What abuse? Her idea of abuse goes so far as to include pets and shelters. It's ridiculous.


Burning down my house doesn't decrease human hypocrisy, and human hypocrisy is not an act meriting burning down a house.


It would reduce yours after you've been subjected to a taste of what you're defending. As for merit, well, you don't see the merit. But since I do, obviously it's ok. Just like how PETA see's the merit in burning down buildings in their crusade is meritorious.

Arguments of merit by individual viewpoint is a dangerously stupid thing to do.


No, PETA's justifications actually make sense.


No they don't. They're exaggerated, overblown and full of lies.


That doesn't follow. Why must the creators of something be its only subjects?


Because it's arrogance otherwise. Especially when we're talking cross-species here.


Obviously we can't just take human laws and apply them as they are to non-human animals. But no one proposes doing that, so....


Not laws. But rights. PETA argues for human rights to be applied to animals, and in some cases puts humans below animals for medical testing.


And when did I mention any "great moral judge"?

You appear to be taking that role for yourself by arguing for PETA's case.


You've already granted that in some circumstances violating the law is justifiable, anyway.


Murder's illegal. But killing in self defense is allowed. It's called mitigating circumstances. But nowhere will you find a law that will allow you to burn down buildings because you want to "liberate" animals.


No... but if I am actually right and it is a bad standard, that is not (morally) inconsequential at all.

But since the people doing the sawing believe they are right, that's all that matters doesn't it? Or what if the majority of people supported it? Would that change your opinion?

It doesn't matter whether it's a good or bad standard. All that matters is that they believe it's a good one.

And by arguing in that in some cases, allowing belief to trump law opens the door to allowing any belief to trump law. Do you really want to go down that slope?


There are plenty of people who believe very fervently that (say) evolution is false. The fervency of their belief does not make it any more sound.

But you're defending PETA's right to act on its fervent beliefs. It may not be sound, but you're still defending them.

And then you turn around and castigate other people for believing in something else.

Damn, this argument is starting to get really long winded.

And by arguing in that in some cases, allowing belief to trump law opens the door to allowing any belief to trump law. Do you really want to go down that slope?

yes, provided the belief in question is better justified and more moral than the law. no one should ever want things to be otherwise.

yes, provided the belief in question is better justified and more moral than the law. no one should ever want things to be otherwise.

Fine. So where's this arbitrary line that puts a justification as more moral and better than the law? Is there one? There'd better be. Otherwise, leaving things to subjective interpretation opens the door to all sorts of moral crusaders.

Fine. So where's this arbitrary line that puts a justification as more moral and better than the law? Is there one? There'd better be. Otherwise, leaving things to subjective interpretation opens the door to all sorts of moral crusaders.

depends on the law and moral principle in question, doesn't it? the fact of the matter is that your law trump card proposal means that at various times and places you are obligated to actively participate in slavery and genocide and rape, etc. it is these considerations that have led almost everyone who gives it a moments' thought to utterly reject that as even a starting point option.

depends on the law and moral principle in question, doesn't it? the fact of the matter is that your law trump card proposal means that at various times and places you are obligated to actively participate in slavery and genocide and rape, etc. it is these considerations that have led almost everyone who gives it a moments' thought to utterly reject that as even a starting point option.

I've allowed for mitigating circumstances, and the only moral arbitrary ruling I ever apply to laws is when it allows an individual to cause non-consensual harm to another human being (the latter not breaking any law so executions don't count).

Too many people try to get fancy with their moral justifications and become hypocrites.

True, although it is true that if you get sick, or are born with a defect, something went wrong, either your immune system wasn't strong enough, or your genes got messed up during conception, or you inherited 'weak genes'.

No, actually, that's not true.

Perhaps you should learn a bit more about biology and medicine before you go any further with these grand theories of yours.

At any rate, I still don't see why you conclude that an individual who has "weak" traits should simply let themselves die. Lance Armstrong's body was so weak that he was diagnosed with three types of cancer at the same time. I guess he's just a great big wuss because, instead of letting himself die the way a "strong" person would do, he and his doctors beat the cancer and he went on to win the most prestigious cycling race in the world. 5 times.

Stephen Hawking must be fucking weak, too. Pity that his weak, useless genes haven't died out already, and instead he fights off a crippling illness and continues to make stunning breakthroughs. What a weak motherfucker he is. I know I, for one, would hate to see more children born into this world with Hawking's genius.

Ok, I'll stop. But I think you get my point.

Ok, I'll stop. But I think you get my point.

Somehow I doubt it.

Not naturally. Outside help in the form of medicine would have let you survive.

Outside help born of human intelligence, a natural trait.

As far as the species on this planet are concerned we're physically weak. The only advantage we have that has let us rise to being the dominant species on this planet is our intelligence. You're suggesting that we don't use it. You're ridiculing those with genetic defects for being weak, while at the same time saying that we weaken our entire species by holding back from using the technology that we've developed and the knowledge that we've gained even though it's a lot of who we are as a species and it's the thing that has got us where we are.

Making our species physically weaker, strength wise and medically- by depending on medicine and things to do our work.

No, actually, that's not true.

Perhaps you should learned a bit more about biology and medicine before you go any further with these grand theories of yours.

At any rate, I still don't see why you conclude that an individual who has "weak" traits should simply let themselves die. Lance Armstrong's body was so weak that he was diagnosed with three types of cancer at the same time. I guess he's just a great big wuss because, instead of letting himself die the way a "strong" person would do, he and his doctors beat the cancer and he went on to win the most prestigious cycling race in the world. 5 times.

Stephen Hawking must be fucking weak, too. Pity that his weak, useless genes haven't died out already, and instead he fights off a crippling illness and continues to make stunning breakthroughs. What a weak motherfucker he is. I know I, for one, would hate to see more children born into this world with Hawking's genius.

Ok, I'll stop. But I think you get my point.

Why do people get cancer? Either they were exposed to cancer causing agents, or they inherited it.

Stephen Hawking is a genius, but look at him. He can't talk (on his own) or get out of his chair. I only hope that nobody else is born with the same condition he has. If he passes on his genes, he is passing on that illness with him, which weakens the vitality and physical robustness of our species.

Outside help born of human intelligence, a natural trait.

I guess, though its not aiding our physical well-being of our species. It lets people with genes that pass along genetic defects to survive and pass on their genes, weakening the vitality of our species. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying they should be killed, imprisoned, or anything. I'm merely making a point.

Making our species physically weaker, strength wise and medically- by depending on medicine and things to do our work.

So, the fact that humans live longer and are in better health than any time in the history of our species, this is evidence that we are becoming "weaker"?


Why do people get cancer? Either they were exposed to cancer causing agents, or they inherited it.

What's your point?


Stephen Hawking is a genius, but look at him. He can't talk (on his own) or get out of his chair. I only hope that nobody else is born with the same condition he has. If he passes on his genes, he is passing on that illness with him, which weakens the vitality and physical robustness of our species.

You might want to learn about his illness before you make wild statements like that.

Hawking has at least three children that I know of, and at least one grandchild. None of them have ALS.

Hawking also has two biological sisters (each of whom is as genetically similar to Hawking as his own offspring would be). As far as I know, neither they nor their children have ALS.

This is unsurprising, considering that between 90-95% of ALS cases have no known hereditary component.


I guess, though its not aiding our physical well-being of our species. It lets people with genes that pass along genetic defects to survive and pass on their genes, weakening the vitality of our species.

Please, I'm begging you, take a genetics course before you talk about this any more. You sound like you've been getting all your genetics information from reading old X-men comics.


That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying they should be killed, imprisoned, or anything. I'm merely making a point.
A point that is, sadly, not grounded in reality.

Bottle:

People pass along their genetic material when they procreate. If both people involved are carriers of MS, then there is a chance their child will have MS. If only one person is a carrier, then their child will be a carrier.

I don't see what is wrong with saying that if people have a genetic illness, they pass it on to their offspring, who may, or may not end up with the disease, but will be a carrier.

Am I wrong?

Why do people get cancer? Either they were exposed to cancer causing agents, or they inherited it.

Stephen Hawking is a genius, but look at him. He can't talk (on his own) or get out of his chair. I only hope that nobody else is born with the same condition he has. If he passes on his genes, he is passing on that illness with him, which weakens the vitality and physical robustness of our species.
How do you know? Do you know which gender passes on that specific illness? I bet you don't, you're just a pro-eugenics loony.

Please, I'm begging you, take a genetics course before you talk about this any more. You sound like you've been getting all your genetics information from reading old X-men comics.

Or Nazi science books.

Please, I'm begging you, take a genetics course before you talk about this any more. You sound like you've been getting all your genetics information from reading old X-men comics.


In the office here we have a book on eugenics written in the 30s*. (It is good for a laugh.) Even the views in that are more advanced then the ones being put forward by Trollgaard.


*You and Heredity by JBS Haldane if anyone is interested.

How do you know? Do you know which gender passes on that specific illness? I bet you don't, you're just a pro-eugenics loony.


Or Nazi science books.


You and some other posters pulled that shit of no where. I never said anything about it eugenics, Aryans, or Nazis. You did.

You and some other posters pulled that shit of no where. I never said anything about it eugenics, Aryans, or Nazis. You did.
Do you even know what eugenics is :rolleyes:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eugenics

Everything you have said in this topic has been pro-eugenics.

You and some other posters pulled that shit of no where. I never said anything about it eugenics, Aryans, or Nazis. You did.

You never used the word Eugenics, but you're speaking the language of Eugenics. Not only that, but you're supporting the key tenet of eugenics.

You and some other posters pulled that shit of no where. I never said anything about it eugenics, Aryans, or Nazis. You did.

...if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a goose...

What you fail to realize in your comment about Hawking, is that the condition he has is NOT genetic and is NOT passed down through genes. What this shows of you is a fundamental lack of knowledge about the subject you are talking about, which thoroughly undermines your argument and makes you easily subject to ridicule.

If you want to be taken even remotely seriously, try reading up on a subject before debating it.

Fair enough. I did not know what afflicted Mr. Hawking.

Bottle:

People pass along their genetic material when they procreate. If both people involved are carriers of MS, then there is a chance their child will have MS. If only one person is a carrier, then their child will be a carrier.

I don't see what is wrong with saying that if people have a genetic illness, they pass it on to their offspring, who may, or may not end up with the disease, but will be a carrier.

Am I wrong?

What you fail to realize in your comment about Hawking, is that the condition he has is NOT genetic and is NOT passed down through genes. What this shows of you is a fundamental lack of knowledge about the subject you are talking about, which thoroughly undermines your argument and makes you easily subject to ridicule.

If you want to be taken even remotely seriously, try reading up on a subject before debating it.

Bottle:

People pass along their genetic material when they procreate. If both people involved are carriers of MS, then there is a chance their child will have MS. If only one person is a carrier, then their child will be a carrier.

Who's talking about MS? Are you really going to try to leap to another disease that obviously, simply because I've pointed out one that doesn't fit your pet theory? I should warn you that nobody here will be fooled.

Though, if you'd like to talk about MS, I'd be happy to tell you all about my mom. She's got MS. I'll bet you a shiny new dime that I know more about MS than you do.

For instance, I know the MS is not considered a hereditary disease. I know that research has not yet identified the cause of MS. Right now, the prevailing theory is that some form of viral/retroviral agent can prime an individual's immune system in some manner that leads to the development of MS.

To say that two people can be "carriers" of MS, or that it's inherited in such a straightforward manner, is basically just bunk in terms of current research. Particularly since studies of identical twins (who, by definition, have identical DNA) have shown that the likelihood that the second twin may develop MS if the first twin does is about 30%. If MS were a "genetic disease," that number should be 100%.


I don't see what is wrong with saying that if people have a genetic illness, they pass it on to their offspring, who may, or may not end up with the disease, but will be a carrier.

Am I wrong?
Nothing is wrong with saying that. But that's not what you have been saying.

Making our species physically weaker, strength wise and medically- by depending on medicine and things to do our work.
So, vaccinating ourselves against diseases make us weaker? Rehabilitating people who've suffered serious injuries makes them weaker?

Oh, and what's so wrong with relying on our main strength over every other creature on this planet, our intelligence? Should cheetahs run slower, or salmon intentionally fail to swim up a waterfall?


I guess, though its not aiding our physical well-being of our species.
On the contrary. See my vaccination example. There are numerous diseases that humanity can make itself immune to. How can that be anything other than a strength?
It lets people with genes that pass along genetic defects to survive and pass on their genes, weakening the vitality of our species.
Helping people with genetic defects overcome the weaknesses that defect causes weakens our species? Taking a weakened individual and making him or her stronger weakens our species?


What?

...if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a goose...

It's a witch! Burn it!

God damn. I don't even know what I was trying to say anymore.

Who's talking about MS? Are you really going to try to leap to another disease that obviously, simply because I've pointed out one that doesn't fit your pet theory? I should warn you that nobody here will be fooled.

Though, if you'd like to talk about MS, I'd be happy to tell you all about my mom. She's got MS. I'll bet you a shiny new dime that I know more about MS than you do.

For instance, I know the MS is not considered a hereditary disease. I know that research has not yet identified the cause of MS. Right now, the prevailing theory is that some form of viral/retroviral agent can prime an individual's immune system in some manner that leads to the development of MS.

To say that two people can be "carriers" of MS, or that it's inherited in such a straightforward manner, is basically just bunk in terms of current research. Particularly since studies of identical twins (who, by definition, have identical DNA) have shown that the likelihood that the second twin may develop MS if the first twin does is about 30%. If MS were a "genetic disease," that number should be 100%.


Nothing is wrong with saying that. But that's not what you have been saying.

MS was just an example. What you say contradicts everything I have ever heard of MS. But whateva. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

Well that is what I was trying to get across. (in reference to the bold portion)

Do you even know what eugenics is :rolleyes:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eugenics

Everything you have said in this topic has been pro-eugenics.

I thought Eugenics had something to do with the shape of the skull. Maybe that was some other 19th century thing.

I don't see how the basic premise is bad, but it could be taken to extremes.

God damn. I don't even know what I was trying to say anymore.
I think it had something to do with not testing anything on animals but also not testing on people. So you were expressing an opposition to testing of medical treatments. And you were arguing in favor of selective breeding to eliminate degenerate people though I don't think you used that word.

God damn. I don't even know what I was trying to say anymore.

Did you at some point?

I think it had something to do with not testing anything on animals but also not testing on people. So you were expressing an opposition to testing of medical treatments. And you were arguing in favor of selective breeding to eliminate degenerate people though I don't think you used that word.

Right, thats it. 'cept I didn't think that I called for 'degenerate' people to be eliminated.

Did you at some point?

I think so.

I've allowed for mitigating circumstances, and the only moral arbitrary ruling I ever apply to laws is when it allows an individual to cause non-consensual harm to another human being (the latter not breaking any law so executions don't count).

then that whole law law law thing was essentially a red herring. your issue with them on this point is that you disagree on the relevant standard of moral justification - harm to people vs harm to beings that feel pain or some such. well, this sounds like a difference that can be rationally argued over to me. perhaps you ought to try it?

MS was just an example. What you say contradicts everything I have ever heard of MS. But whateva.
I'm not trying to beat up on you just for funzies. I'm trying to get across to you how silly it is for you to go through life with this bizarre notion of "weak genes" versus "strong genes," when you haven't even bothered to understand genes in the first place.

Think about how insulting it is for a person like me to hear all your talk of "weak genes." Do you really want to insult people that much, if you aren't even sure of the basic facts?

Right, thats it. 'cept I didn't think that I called for 'degenerate' people to be eliminated.
Sure you did. You don't think anybody should use medical treatments to repair or prevent damage to their bodies due to injury or disease. You've said as much. You've voiced the opinion that the human species would be better off if such people died out and took their "weak genes" with them.

You're just calling for their elimination in a passive-aggressive sort of way.

I thought Eugenics had something to do with the shape of the skull. Maybe that was some other 19th century thing.

You're thinking of phrenology.

I'm not trying to beat up on you just for funzies. I'm trying to get across to you how silly it is for you to go through life with this bizarre notion of "weak genes" versus "strong genes," when you haven't even bothered to understand genes in the first place.

Think about how insulting it is for a person like me to hear all your talk of "weak genes." Do you really want to insult people that much, if you aren't even sure of the basic facts?

Sorry man, I said it halfway joking in reference to myself being strong enough to survive a disease. It spiraled out of control.

Sure you did. You don't think anybody should use medical treatments to repair or prevent damage to their bodies due to injury or disease. You've said as much. You've voiced the opinion that the human species would be better off if such people died out and took their "weak genes" with them.

You're just calling for their elimination in a passive-aggressive sort of way.

I guess so.

You're thinking of phrenology.

That's right! Thanks for clarifying.

I thought Eugenics had something to do with the shape of the skull. Maybe that was some other 19th century thing.

Yes, it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

I don't see how the basic premise is bad

That is because you are not a smart person.

Most proponents of eugenics wouldn't survive it.

Sorry man, I said it halfway joking in reference to myself being strong enough to survive a disease. It spiraled out of control.

No big deal, I just figure it might be better for somebody to point out the error in your thinking before you run into Lance Armstrong and decide to share your theory of "weak genes." Because let me tell you something about Lance Armstrong: he can kick ALL our asses.

The problem with Trollgard and those like him is that they somehow believe physical attributes are the more important qualities. As was brought up, Hawkings (and it's not even really sure his condition is genetic) has done great things for our science. The fact that he can't move has not lessened this impact.

But trollgaard would seem to think that society would have been better if he were born a muscle bound idiot.

The problem with Trollgard and those like him is that they somehow believe physical attributes are the more important qualities. As was brought up, Hawkings (and it's not even really sure his condition is genetic) has done great things for our science. The fact that he can't move has not lessened this impact.

But trollgaard would seem to think that society would have been better if he were born a muscle bound idiot.
Indeed.

At this point, I'm forced to wonder why so many people think that the human species will benefit most if we breed for physical prowess.

Precisely how many buffalo have you needed to hunt down in the last week? Killed many saber-tooth tigers today?

Boo hoo hoo, Stephen Hawking cannot subdue a boar with his bare hands. I guess that means our species is headed right down the tubes...

Indeed.

At this point, I'm forced to wonder why so many people think that the human species will benefit most if we breed for physical prowess.

Precisely how many buffalo have you needed to hunt down in the last week? Killed many saber-tooth tigers today?

Boo hoo hoo, Stephen Hawking cannot subdue a boar with his bare hands. I guess that means our species is headed right down the tubes...

You've got to understand my where I'm coming from to get my view point. My thinking is from the viewpoint that civilization will not last, so sometime in the very near future people may very well have to subdue a boar, although preferably with a spear rather than their bare hands, but that would badass if they did wrestle it down bare handed...

Understanding my views of civilization put the rest of views in perspective, although not to many of you agree with me.

Indeed.

At this point, I'm forced to wonder why so many people think that the human species will benefit most if we breed for physical prowess.

Precisely how many buffalo have you needed to hunt down in the last week? Killed many saber-tooth tigers today?

Boo hoo hoo, Stephen Hawking cannot subdue a boar with his bare hands. I guess that means our species is headed right down the tubes...

Well I mean, this is the point really. I'm a guy in pretty good shape. I exercise, eat well, take care of myself (by the way bottle, can you TG me that info you had on calorie intake calculations you posted a while back?). And this benefits me because I'm healthier.

I'm not sure how this benefits society however. I'm a lawyer. I could be crippled in a wheelchair wearing glasses and still do my job with out much greater difficulty. The benefits I provide to society, both from contributing to it via my job itself, as well as earning a taxable income, have nothing to do with the fact that I'm in shape.

Now, yes, sure, there are certain roles in our society that value strength, but even they are becomming less and less as mechanized equipmnent becomes cheaper and more sophisticated. In fact, "hard labor" is generally seen as a last alternative, something you do when you don't have the education to do anything else.

And, not to be cruel and mean and elitist, but there will always be a supply of people to fill that particular niche.

Now, yes, sure, there are certain roles in our society that value strength, but even they are becomming less and less as mechanized equipmnent becomes cheaper and more sophisticated. In fact, "hard labor" is generally seen as a last alternative, something you do when you don't have the education to do anything else.

T is a primmie, so that's all sort of irrelevant

You've got to understand my where I'm coming from to get my view point. My thinking is from the viewpoint that civilization will not last, so sometime in the very near future people may very well have to subdue a boar, although preferably with a spear rather than their bare hands, but that would badass if they did wrestle it down bare handed...


I want what you're smoking.

Making our species physically weaker, strength wise and medically- by depending on medicine and things to do our work.


Why the hell are you using a computer then? Go back to your Amish community and leave us innovative technology users alone. You want to talk to us? Come find us then.

I want what you're smoking.

A Pall Mall? If you want I'll let you bum one.

Just read some of the books I mentioned in my anti-civilization thread a few weeks ago.

A Pall Mall? If you want I'll let you bum one.


No, I mean the magic dust you must be smoking, that seems to be making you delusional.

then that whole law law law thing was essentially a red herring. your issue with them on this point is that you disagree on the relevant standard of moral justification - harm to people vs harm to beings that feel pain or some such. well, this sounds like a difference that can be rationally argued over to me. perhaps you ought to try it?

The laws tied in with my argument. Soheran argued for action that contradicted law on the grounds of concepts that the law (written by humans for humans) could be ignored when the primary justification was not directly related to humans or human related issues (no, calling for animal rights to be equal or greater than humans isn't a human related issue. It's a stupid issue.)

You've got to understand my where I'm coming from to get my view point. My thinking is from the viewpoint that civilization will not last, so sometime in the very near future people may very well have to subdue a boar, although preferably with a spear rather than their bare hands, but that would badass if they did wrestle it down bare handed...

Understanding my views of civilization put the rest of views in perspective, although not to many of you agree with me.

I for one would be interested in where such an opinion comes from? Are you privy to data that shows civilisation will not last, or is it a random belief that some folk have?

Let's assume for one moment that civilization, indeed, collapses (and that's an unlikely scenario).

Okay.

What WOULD happen in that case is that SOME, but not by any means ALL technology would be forgotten. You're assuming civilization would collapse along with spoken and written language and any and all traces of human intelligence, technology included. It wouldn't. The world would go towards Mad Max, not a Discovery Channel documentary. In such a world, it takes people with knowledge and skill to keep what little technology they have left running, to replicate it and to create new ones, because technology, not the ability to subdue boars with fists, is what keeps us alive. A strong man would still die against a lion. A weak man with a musket created by a smart man wouldn't.

What you fail to realize in your comment about Hawking, is that the condition he has is NOT genetic and is NOT passed down through genes. What this shows of you is a fundamental lack of knowledge about the subject you are talking about, which thoroughly undermines your argument and makes you easily subject to ridicule.

If you want to be taken even remotely seriously, try reading up on a subject before debating it.I was under the impression that Hawking has ALS and that it is somewhat hereditable.

*looking up*

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis is characterized by progressive loss of motor nerves in the spinal cord and brain. In about 10% of cases, ALS is caused by a genetic defect. In other cases, the cause of the nerve deterioration is unknown.

ALS affects approximately 1 out of every 100,000 people.

Except for having a family member affected with the hereditary form of the disease, there are no known risk factors.


Hawking was in his early twenties when he was diagnosed. Back in the '60s. He was expected to be dead in a few years.

I was under the impression that Hawking has ALS and that it is somewhat hereditable.

*looking up*

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis is characterized by progressive loss of motor nerves in the spinal cord and brain. In about 10% of cases, ALS is caused by a genetic defect.

Not for nothing but, I bolded the relevant part. More to point:

ALS is classified into three general groups, familial ALS, sporadic ALS and Guamanian ALS.

"Familial ALS" accounts for approximately 5%-10% of all ALS cases and is caused by genetic factors. Of these approximately 10% are linked to a mutation in Superoxide dismutase (SOD1), a copper/zinc dependant dismutase that is responsible for scavenging free radicals.
Most of the remaining 90-95% of cases are classified as "sporadic ALS" and have no known hereditary component.


Only 5%-10% of people with ALS (which amounts to roughly 1 to 4 people per one million) have the heridary form. Hawking, like the majority of people with ALS, have the form with no known hereditary component.

I for one would be interested in where such an opinion comes from? Are you privy to data that shows civilisation will not last, or is it a random belief that some folk have?

well, induction based on the fates of previous civilizations would appear to generally support the belief, at the very least.

well, induction based on the fates of previous civilizations would appear to generally support the belief, at the very least.

No, you refer to the fall of a given nation or ethnicity, not civilization.

No, you refer to the fall of a given nation or ethnicity, not civilization.

Aye, I'm pretty fucking sure India and China weren't exactly perturbed by the fall or Rome. And no one on this side of the pond even noticed the collapse of the Maya until after the fact.

Aye, I'm pretty fucking sure India and China weren't exactly perturbed by the fall or Rome. And no one on this side of the pond even noticed the collapse of the Maya until after the fact.

Exactly. As such, civilization, i.e. technology and so on, wouldn't fall to the point where one has to hunt with club, bow and arrow to survive. A nation falls but is replaced by a new one in less than a generation.

A weak man with a musket created by a smart man wouldn't.

And how is a smart man going to build a musket without a great deal of physical strength. It's not like there would be any machine tools at that point. You'd have to be a blacksmith, and they were renowned for physical prowess.

Stephen Hawking is a genius, but look at him. He can't talk (on his own) or get out of his chair. I only hope that nobody else is born with the same condition he has. If he passes on his genes, he is passing on that illness with him, which weakens the vitality and physical robustness of our species.


...you're a loon, you know that?

Incidentally, I have a genetic disorder. There's a pretty good chance that I'll pass it on to some percentage of my potential offspring. I also, incidentally, have an IQ well above "genius" level, have been directly involved in saving more than one person's life (and quite a few animals' lives as well, since that seems to be important to you), and would really rather enjoy having you try to tell me to my face that humanity would be better if I weren't part of it.

No, you refer to the fall of a given nation or ethnicity, not civilization.

no, i refer to civilizations, which is what i said.

and, of course, our current global civilization is actually subject to all the same dangers that brought about all the previous collapses but even bigger and worse. come on, this isn't exactly an unheard of position even in the mainstream.

...you're a loon, you know that?

Incidentally, I have a genetic disorder. There's a pretty good chance that I'll pass it on to some percentage of my potential offspring. I also, incidentally, have an IQ well above "genius" level, have been directly involved in saving more than one person's life (and quite a few animals' lives as well, since that seems to be important to you), and would really rather enjoy having you try to tell me to my face that humanity would be better if I weren't part of it.Up until two generations ago, Huntingtons Chorea
http://pa.essortment.com/whatishuntingt_rctd.htm
ran in my family. I had a great-uncle with it, but his sister, my grandmother, never got it. Since it doesn't skip generations, I'm safe. But I think I'd rather have ALS than Huntingtons. At least ALS leaves your mind intact.

Unfortunately, most people had already had offspring by the time they discovered they had the disorder. Of course, we now have genetic tests that will tell you before you have kids. But would you want to know? If you weren't planning to have kids, and there's no effective treatment or cure, would you want to know?

Incidentally, diabetes, certain cancers and bipolar disorder run heavily in my family. But most of us manage to make some sort of contribution to society. So screw the Darwinian asses of the group.

And how is a smart man going to build a musket without a great deal of physical strength. It's not like there would be any machine tools at that point. You'd have to be a blacksmith, and they were renowned for physical prowess.

You're not describing the end of civilization here, you're describing any and all technology magically disappearing.

no, i refer to civilizations, which is what i said.

and, of course, our current global civilization is actually subject to all the same dangers that brought about all the previous collapses but even bigger and worse. come on, this isn't exactly an unheard of position even in the mainstream.

Even then you're not assuming the end of civilization, you're assuming all technology magically disappearing.

Even then you're not assuming the end of civilization, you're assuming all technology magically disappearing.

technology has this remarkable way of disappearing really fucking fast once nobody is using it anymore and nobody is maintaining the underlying infrastructure required for continuing to do so even if they wanted. seriously, read up on what has happened in other collapses.

You're not describing the end of civilization here, you're describing any and all technology magically disappearing.

No, I'm describing a worst case peak oil scenario, which would land us back in about the seventeenth or eighteenth century. After all, all the easy coal has gone, so we'll be back to iron plantations and blacksmiths.

But that doesn't mean the end of all technology. Just the energy intensive bits.

No, I'm describing a worst case peak oil scenario, which would land us back in about the seventeenth or eighteenth century.
The absurdity of that statement is mind blowing. How much oil is actually involved in power output? Probably about as much as wind. Now coal on the other hand..

The absurdity of that statement is mind blowing. How much oil is actually involved in power output? Probably about as much as wind. Now coal on the other hand..

Only about 3% for oil. 50% of our power comes from coal. Unfortunately oil is used to mine and transport that coal, so....

Ask one of the doom and gloomers about the worst case.

Ask one of the doom and gloomers about the worst case.
Well if I have to hear how peak oil is going to knock us back to the "17th or 18th" century, I have more entertaining woo-woos to listen to. 50% from coal leaves 47% from non-coal/oil sources which isn't as bad as I thought.

Well if I have to hear how peak oil is going to knock us back to the "17th or 18th" century, I have more entertaining woo-woos to listen to. 50% from coal leaves 47% from non-coal/oil sources which isn't as bad as I thought.

And the other 47% depends a lot upon petrochemicals.

Notice the date.

A bit over a year ago. Since then, you have continued to make the same claims you did in that thread, and continue to say that you are not a vegan or vegetarian. Ergo, there is no indication that you do not continue to believe that.

But that doesn't mean the end of all technology. Just the energy intensive bits.

And only until something is created to replace oil. Even then, OTHER technologies would easily allow for people NOT to have to rely on physical prowess to live.

And only until something is created to replace oil. Even then, OTHER technologies would easily allow for people NOT to have to rely on physical prowess to live.

You assume that there are other technologies. Most likely they will be developed, but we were talking worse case scenarios.

And there is no guarantee that something will be invented to replace oil. This might be it, the twilight of industrial civilization. Check out what the doom and gloomers at peak oil have to say about it.

continue to say that you are not a vegan or vegetarian.

I do? Really?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that that's the last time I said I wasn't a vegetarian... excepting a post where I noted I make an exception for fish, on the moral basis that the (un-farmed) ones aren't subject to the long-term horrific imprisonment suffered by animals in factory farms, and that their capacity to feel pain isn't equivalent to that of mammals or birds.

But I'm sure you know a whole lot more about me than I do. :rolleyes:

I do? Really?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that that's the last time I said I wasn't a vegetarian... excepting a post where I noted I make an exception for fish, on the moral basis that the (un-farmed) ones aren't subject to the long-term horrific imprisonment suffered by animals in factory farms, and that their capacity to feel pain isn't equivalent to that of mammals or birds.

But I'm sure you know a whole lot more about me than I do. :rolleyes:

So are you, or are you not, a vegan? Clarify your position please.

This time they have gone too god damn far. They stole a kindergarten class' bunny. Now they are stealing pets from children, have they no souls?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20975943/?gt1=10357

The sons of bitches stole a rabbit from a classroom and left a flier protesting the coming Ringling Brother's circus showing a picture of a bear trying to escape a cage and bearing the names of PETA and the Northwest Animal Rights Network. PETA, of course, disavows any knowledge of the action and claims they support people owning domesticated animals. We all of course know this is bullshit and that if PETA wasn't involved directly, they wholly support this.

I hope they catch whoever did this and send them to the stockade after a public flogging.

do you have any idea how DANGEROUS bunnies are to preshcoolers? sure they LOOK soft and cuddly ...

and for that matter, anyone who has ever been arround young humans know they are probably the most dangerous things on the planet to anything else, even other humans. the only reason infants of any species survive to insure their species survival is because nature tries to make them irrisistably cute. this seems to work with most species. only with humans have the resaults been somewhat questionable. most humans though seem to have strong, feelings about this, as any parent would.

did anyone thing to ask the rabbit's mommy how she felt about her little one(s) being exposed to this terror?

why not flog animal haters instead? or landlords who won't let their tenents adopt and keep stray pets?

=^^=
.../\...

I do? Really?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that that's the last time I said I wasn't a vegetarian... excepting a post where I noted I make an exception for fish, on the moral basis that the (un-farmed) ones aren't subject to the long-term horrific imprisonment suffered by animals in factory farms, and that their capacity to feel pain isn't equivalent to that of mammals or birds.

But I'm sure you know a whole lot more about me than I do. :rolleyes:

Fish look pretty unhappy to me when they're pulled out of the water.

But you get credit for not eating poultry, if I'm inferring that correctly from your post. I'm a bird fan myself, and it pisses me off when so-called "vegetarians" think only animals with fur matter.

I recall working at McDonald's, a girl ordered chicken nuggets and stated that she didn't eat meat. I let her walk away, and to the next customer, I simply said "I'm pretty sure chickens are made of meat."

I actually live with someone who doesn't eat meat, but eats chicken and fish, and to me, it's just stupid. I still eat chicken even though I like birds because it all supports the same damn industry anyway. The hilarious part is that she was apparently scared into ceasing meat consumption by mad cow disease, or something similarly retarded.

Because, of course, only meat makes people sick.

But I guess I got sidetracked.

Clarify your position please.

The interesting question is, why should I?

If I am a hypocrite--as I am, as everyone is--the only reason for my actions would be convenience. That is not a moral reason at all. It would not change in the slightest anyone's moral obligation. My arguments would be as justified as ever.

If I told you, right now, that I regularly engaged in the torture of chimpanzees for the sadistic pleasure it brought me, it would not make that activity any more morally acceptable. (I don't, for what it's worth.) It might make me a bad person... but I have never claimed to be particularly morally good, and the subject of this thread is not my moral worth anyway.

We do not think slavery is morally acceptable because some of its opponents kept slaves.

Don't expect another response if you reply to this... it's pretty much certain to be as worthless as your other replies, and my patience has finally run out.

Fish look pretty unhappy to me when they're pulled out of the water.

Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything... the real question is how "advanced" their nervous system is.

If I am a hypocrite--as I am, as everyone is--the only reason for my actions would be convenience. That is not a moral reason at all. It would not change in the slightest anyone's moral obligation. My arguments would be as justified as ever.


Justification for personal viewpoints is nothing but a lie if the holder of said viewpoint does not follow the justification. Saying one thing, and doing another, robs weight of what you have to say. The rest of what you have to say below is just so much fluff.

You have argued for a moral position. If you do not live up to said moral position, then your argument has no weight.

Also, you've not exactly justified most of your moral position with any real proof.

Lastly, if you can catch me acting hypocritically, I would welcome the attempt. Perhaps it might be ironic revenge for you, but it would be useful in excising a worthless aspect of my psychological makeup.


Don't expect another response if you reply to this... it's pretty much certain to be as worthless as your other replies, and my patience has finally run out.

Yes, because arbitrary claims of the future worth of a debater's points without a record of actually proving the worth of previously mentioned points is the height of debating etiquette.

:rolleyes:

You have argued for a moral position. If you do not live up to said moral position, then your argument has no weight.

That would only be true if my argument were somehow dependent on me. But arguments are not dependent on the people advancing them; they are dependent on objective criteria like reason. The truth of premises, and the validity of the movement from them to the conclusion, are both facts independent of the speaker.

If my beliefs are inconsistent, that is a different matter: there is a rational break there because of the principle of non-contradiction. But if my actions do not correspond to my moral beliefs, then that is a moral failing, a failing of will, not of reason, and has nothing to do with the justification, or lack of such, of my moral beliefs.

arbitrary

Not at all.

That would only be true if my argument were somehow dependent on me. But arguments are not dependent on the people advancing them; they are dependent on objective criteria like reason. The truth of premises, and the validity of the movement from them to the conclusion, are both facts independent of the speaker.

If my beliefs are inconsistent, that is a different matter: there is a rational break there because of the principle of non-contradiction. But if my actions do not correspond to my moral beliefs, then that is a moral failing, a failing of will, not of reason, and has nothing to do with the justification, or lack of such, of my moral beliefs.

So to summarize, you state that inconsistency between personal ethos and moral, along with, justification type arguments has no bearing of the weight of the argument at all. Is this correct?


Not at all.

You have not actually proven the worthlessness of previous debating points. I will accept that some of the points raised were needlessly exaggerated, but they were within the same logical paths of the organization you wished to defend, simply taken to the extreme.

So to summarize, you state that inconsistency between personal ethos and moral, along with, justification type arguments has no bearing of the weight of the argument at all. Is this correct?

My position is that inconsistency between behavior and moral beliefs has no bearing on the justification behind the moral beliefs.

You have not actually proven the worthlessness of previous debating points.

I think I did, sufficiently.

Obviously you disagree, but it got to the point where you were pretty clearly just throwing out anything that made any semblance of sense, without any serious consideration of what I was saying or the arguments with which you opposed it, so....

My position is that inconsistency between behavior and moral beliefs has no bearing on the justification behind the moral beliefs.


An inconsistency on that level would indicate to me that similar inconsistencies and flaws would also be present in the justification. A justification that is consistent and believed in, yet not followed through the course of action that the justification specifies?

I assume we speak of pre-action justification rather than making the excuse after the fact type justification.


I think I did, sufficiently.

Obviously you disagree

Then this leaves us at an impasse.

An inconsistency on that level would indicate to me that similar inconsistencies and flaws would also be present in the justification.

Why?

Again, one kind of "inconsistency" is a matter of weakness of will; the other is a matter of reason. The two need not be related.

Why?

Again, one kind of "inconsistency" is a matter of weakness of will; the other is a matter of reason. The two need not be related.

Perhaps to you. I see it in a different manner. Justifications are essentially reasons for a particular course of action correct?

And how are these reasons formed? If we follow a linear thought process, first would be the event, followed by the action/opinion and lastly the justification/reason.

One doesn't just come up with a justification for no particular task/opinion and attach it to whatever opinion/action that would pop up later.

I see the commonalities of opinion/action and justification as interlinked. By having an inconsistency in action and espoused beliefs/opinions, then it stands to reason that the justifications are equally inconsistent due to their interlinked nature.

For example, Bob has espoused behavior set B, but has set A. He makes a justification for it, but does not do change his behavior to set B. Why? A logical deduction is that Bob does not attach sufficient importance to B in order to change his behavior. Yet he has already justified it. It would stand to reason that either Bob does not believe his justifications, or has created other justifications (too difficult, too lazy, etc, etc), not to do so. This creates an inconsistency of reason, because either other reasons are created to counter the original reason or the belief in the espoused behavior set is lacking. In either case, there is now a lack of connectivity between the two aspects, creating the inconsistency earlier mentioned.

Perhaps to you. I see it in a different manner.

and you are wrong, as a matter of straight up logic.

if a set of premises lead to a conclusion, the fact that a person doesn't then follow through on the conclusion has fuck-all to do with anything. it is not an counterargument to the truth of the conclusion. in fact, it is rather severely fallacious to claim that it is.

And how are these reasons formed? If we follow a linear thought process, first would be the event, followed by the action/opinion and lastly the justification/reason.

Um, maybe you think this way... but generally, if we want to act rationally, we are concerned with our justification before we act.

We ask ourselves: what should I do? And to answer this question, we consider and evaluate the reasons for different courses of action.

I see the commonalities of opinion/action and justification as interlinked.

Yes, they are interlinked. But you have the relation reversed, and fail to take into account the uncertainty of this connection.

Actions do not lead to justification, unless we are behaving irrationally--the mere fact that we do something is not a good reason to do it. Justification leads to action--but not always. Only sometimes. Only when we have the willpower to do what we know is right, whatever the temptation to do otherwise.

Sometimes, of course, we give into temptation--we fail to do what is right despite recognizing what is right. This is a failure of will. It does not indicate that we are wrong about what is right.

Yet he has already justified it. It would stand to reason that either Bob does not believe his justifications, or has created other justifications (too difficult, too lazy, etc, etc), not to do so.

Or neither.

Assuming his sincerity, Bob believes that his behavior ought to correspond to set B. His behavior in fact corresponds to set A. You assume that in order for Bob to act upon set A when he recognizes the justification of set B, he must have another justification for his behavior not corresponding to set B. But this need not be the case.

The reasons you give--difficulty, laziness, and so on--may indeed be the reasons behind his failure. But he need not recognize them as good reasons, justified reasons, to act upon them. Human beings are not wholly rational.

Bob may recognize that he ought to act upon set B. But he may want to act upon set A enough that his will fails--his desires overcome his reason, and he does what he knows to be wrong. "Wanting" in and of itself is not, of course, a good reason. We want to do all sorts of things that we know are wrong. But nevertheless wanting something can determine our actions--even when sometimes it does so against what we know is right.

It is from this that is garnered the notion of "obligation." People say that they are obligated to do something; they do not say (necessarily) that they will actually do it. The reason is that there is a gap between the two. Just because we recognize that the only justified course of action is x does not mean that desire and temptation will not bring us to do y anyway.

This creates an inconsistency of reason, because either other reasons are created to counter the original reason

Yes, this is an inconsistency, but it is still not an inconsistency of reason. It is an inconsistency in us, an inconsistency between the good reasons we know should determine our actions and the bad reasons that actually do. It is a failure of will.

if a set of premises lead to a conclusion, the fact that a person doesn't then follow through on the conclusion has fuck-all to do with anything. it is not an counterargument to the truth of the conclusion. in fact, it is rather severely fallacious to claim that it is.

And I would argue that the the 'truth' of the conclusion is tainted by the inconsistency with which it is reached and cast aside. Or it may not even be true at all. Humans are very good at manufacturing unreasonable and illogical justifications. More on this in my counterargument with Soheran.

Um, maybe you think this way... but generally, if we want to act rationally, we are concerned with our justification before we act.

No, no, no. You've got it wrong. The action has NOT occurred yet. It is the thought of action. It is the "something should be done" phase followed by "it's for so and so" reasoning.

I've excised parts of your counter-argument below that operate on the basis of action then justification since that wasn't the point I was getting across.


Justification leads to action--but not always. Only sometimes. Only when we have the willpower to do what we know is right, whatever the temptation to do otherwise.

Sometimes, of course, we give into temptation--we fail to do what is right despite recognizing what is right. This is a failure of will. It does not indicate that we are wrong about what is right.


What is right? That is a very large assumption. Justifications need not be for "what is right". They could be as simple as pure fulfillment of desire, although the action justified could be bank robbery or murder.

But that is besides the point. However, your use of "what is right" makes for an interesting counterpoint. I will elaborate below.


Assuming his sincerity, Bob believes that his behavior ought to correspond to set B. His behavior in fact corresponds to set A. You assume that in order for Bob to act upon set A when he recognizes the justification of set B, he must have another justification for his behavior not corresponding to set B. But this need not be the case.

I had another caveat to the reasons for inaction, in that insufficient importance was attached to the justification.

In fact, I would theorize that distinct lack of importance is what prompts counter justification in order to avoid a recognition of active hypocrisy (or cognitive dissonance I believe).


The reasons you give--difficulty, laziness, and so on--may indeed be the reasons behind his failure. But he need not recognize them as good reasons, justified reasons, to act upon them. Human beings are not wholly rational.

The bolded part highlights the problem. Rationality. Justifications based on reason by its very nature must be wholly rational. Otherwise it becomes an unreasonable justification. Possibly entirely derived from the Id.

How can a justification based on reason then be argued when it is not rational? This is a clear inconsistency. It would stand to logical deduction that the justification is based on other aspects then, perhaps emotive or desire based aspects.

Yes, I am delving into the realms of human psychology, but given that justifications are created through that psychology, it's logical path to follow for analysis. Application of pure logic and reason tends to conflict with human psychology, but due to the nature of this argument, that of reasoned, consistent justifications, it is necessary.


Bob may recognize that he ought to act upon set B. But he may want to act upon set A enough that his will fails--his desires overcome his reason, and he does what he knows to be wrong. "Wanting" in and of itself is not, of course, a good reason. We want to do all sorts of things that we know are wrong. But nevertheless wanting something can determine our actions--even when sometimes it does so against what we know is right.

It is from this that is garnered the notion of "obligation." People say that they are obligated to do something; they do not say (necessarily) that they will actually do it. The reason is that there is a gap between the two. Just because we recognize that the only justified course of action is x does not mean that desire and temptation will not bring us to do y anyway.


Id overcomes the super-ego. Id however, does not operate on a logical basis, but rather, pure desires. This would mean that during the justification forming process, the Id is already in play, and whatever truths or reasons used in the justifications come out weak and inconsistent so as to facilitate cognitive dissonance and avoidance of mental conflict.


Yes, this is an inconsistency, but it is still not an inconsistency of reason. It is an inconsistency in us, an inconsistency between the good reasons we know should determine our actions and the bad reasons that actually do. It is a failure of will.

I would argue that the failure of said will is already present during the justification forming stage, tainting it. The interlinked nature of the reasoning process means that the latter actions need not actually occur after the justification.

As you said after all, humans are not wholly rational beings.

Thus when a reasoned justification is made, it should be examined for inconsistent taint that the reasoner might have placed in it. Especially when the reasoner displays inconsistent behavior.

What is right? That is a very large assumption. Justifications need not be for "what is right".

Justification is intrinsically connected to "rightness."

They could be as simple as pure fulfillment of desire

No, they couldn't.

Pure fulfillment of desire is "I want x, therefore I do y to achieve it." There is no justification, no consideration of the justness of the action, of whether I ought to do it.

An action undertaken purely to fulfill a desire is an action taken irrelevantly of justification.

The bolded part highlights the problem. Rationality. Justifications based on reason by its very nature must be wholly rational. Otherwise it becomes an unreasonable justification.

Yes, the justification, if it is based on reason, must be wholly rational... and if it is not based on reason, is not really a justification at all.

How can a justification based on reason then be argued when it is not rational?

Who says it is not?

Application of pure logic and reason tends to conflict with human psychology, but due to the nature of this argument, that of reasoned, consistent justifications, it is necessary.

Yes, and this is the point.

Application of pure logic and reason might lead to one conclusion... but because of its conflict with human psychology, the action undertaken is otherwise.

This would mean that during the justification forming process, the Id is already in play, and whatever truths or reasons used in the justifications come out weak and inconsistent so as to facilitate cognitive dissonance and avoidance of mental conflict.

This is exactly what we might expect of the person who claims not to be a hypocrite: the meat-eater who insists, for instance, that meat-eating is not immoral. Her convenience is clearly at stake, and her desire to avoid reaching the conclusion that meat-eating is wrong might bring her to deny animal rights contentions without sufficient justification. (Of course, we still cannot reach this conclusion without actually showing that her positions lack sufficient justification... the mere fact that her conclusions are convenient does not make them wrong.)

With regard to the person, however, who maintains that vegetarianism or veganism is morally obligatory, but does not actually live up to it, we have reason to suspect not cognitive dissonance or the avoidance of mental conflict, but the exact opposite: he has the honesty to pursue and accept the conclusions of rational justification even when they contravene his lifestyle.

Thus when a reasoned justification is made, it should be examined for inconsistent taint that the reasoner might have placed in it.

Indeed, and generally we can test for inconsistency through asking opponents to apply their principles to other cases where the conclusions may not be so convenient.

But the application demanded here is intellectual, not behavioral. For instance, if a person's principle is "A person should never kill people," we might ask her if killing in self-defense is legitimate to show the absurdity of that principle's absoluteness... and that would be a legitimate argument. But if instead we were to say that in extreme circumstances, she would certainly kill another person--or if we have proof that in her past she has done so--this would prove nothing regarding the principle except perhaps the difficulty involved in obeying it. All her principle requires her to accept is that people are obligated not to kill, not that they never will.

Especially when the reasoner displays inconsistent behavior.

No, especially not when the reasoner displays behavior that contradicts his moral standpoint, for reasons already explained.

I support People for the Unethical Treatment of People for the ethical treatment of Animals.

Justification is intrinsically connected to "rightness."

But what exactly is "right"? A Machivalean persona's idea of what is right may be intrinsically tied to his/her personal benefit. The concept of "right" in the moral sense is strictly subjective.

And even then, would it be strictly limited to a person's sense of what is right? For example, a short tempered person may think hurting another is wrong, but still end up with a justification that ends up as "he insulted me, so I am justified in hurting him".


No, they couldn't.

Pure fulfillment of desire is "I want x, therefore I do y to achieve it." There is no justification, no consideration of the justness of the action, of whether I ought to do it.

An action undertaken purely to fulfill a desire is an action taken irrelevantly of justification.


No, you miss out the justification part. In pure fulfillment of desires, there are cases of justification. "I want x, because I deserve/need it, so I do y. If any disagree, that is because they are unjust".

When it comes to human concepts of justness, there are no universal rulings that can be applied across the spectrum. That is why determination of inconsistency in such concepts are limited on a individual to individual basis.

Analysis in organizations is more difficult, but the general outlines to follow would be via publicly stated goals, and comparisons to its supported and performed actions.


Yes, the justification, if it is based on reason, must be wholly rational... and if it is not based on reason, is not really a justification at all.


Yet you have mentioned that humans are not wholly rational. Yet you would argue that this flawed rationality would not affect the justification forming process?


Who says it is not?


Example. A person is shot in a robbery gone wrong. His family sues the firearms industry for supplying the firearm despite the weapon being illegally acquired. What is the rationality for that justification?


Yes, and this is the point.

Application of pure logic and reason might lead to one conclusion... but because of its conflict with human psychology, the action undertaken is otherwise.


Rational justifications require that logic and reason are capable of working through them without encountering an inconsistency. That conflict with human psychology would indicate that there is a problem encountered under that logic test.


This is exactly what we might expect of the person who claims not to be a hypocrite: the meat-eater who insists, for instance, that meat-eating is not immoral. Her convenience is clearly at stake, and her desire to avoid reaching the conclusion that meat-eating is wrong might bring her to deny animal rights contentions without sufficient justification. (Of course, we still cannot reach this conclusion without actually showing that her positions lack sufficient justification... the mere fact that her conclusions are convenient does not make them wrong.)

With regard to the person, however, who maintains that vegetarianism or veganism is morally obligatory, but does not actually live up to it, we have reason to suspect not cognitive dissonance or the avoidance of mental conflict, but the exact opposite: he has the honesty to pursue and accept the conclusions of rational justification even when they contravene his lifestyle.

I have issue with your opening statement. Unless my understanding of the English language has degraded significantly, a hypocrite is one who, at the very core, says one thing, but does another. Which is what exactly occurs here.

How does this person avoid being a hypocrite then?

Unless you are somehow arguing that this person has now entered a recursive loop thought process and operates with the issue unresolved.


Indeed, and generally we can test for inconsistency through asking opponents to apply their principles to other cases where the conclusions may not be so convenient.

But the application demanded here is intellectual, not behavioral. For instance, if a person's principle is "A person should never kill people," we might ask her if killing in self-defense is legitimate to show the absurdity of that principle's absoluteness... and that would be a legitimate argument. But if instead we were to say that in extreme circumstances, she would certainly kill another person--or if we have proof that in her past she has done so--this would prove nothing regarding the principle except perhaps the difficulty involved in obeying it. All her principle requires her to accept is that people are obligated not to kill, not that they never will.


In the vein of the original thread topic, your example is flawed on one premise. There is a great deal of difference between a flexible outlook (you should not do this because of so and so), and a non negotiable standpoint (you cannot, or you will be punished). Especially in the formation of justifications. Justifications with caveats for example.

However, it does not change the requirement that the justification for either be tested. Both tests however, intellectual and behavioral, should be used. The reasons you outlined for not using behavioral tests aren't really valid. Would not a reasoned justification also be grounded in the possibility of actually carrying out whatever course of action was reasoned for?


No, especially not when the reasoner displays behavior that contradicts his moral standpoint, for reasons already explained.

And for reasons I've countered, I would argue that they should be.

But what exactly is "right"? A Machivalean persona's idea of what is right may be intrinsically tied to his/her personal benefit. The concept of "right" in the moral sense is strictly subjective.

No, it isn't, but even if it were, so what?

We are still required to justify, even if we are only justifying by subjective standards--and our justifications are still tied to "right."

No, you miss out the justification part. In pure fulfillment of desires, there are cases of justification. "I want x, because I deserve/need it, so I do y. If any disagree, that is because they are unjust".

I did indeed ignore the justification part, because of the word "pure." In pure fulfillment of desire, there is no room for justification.

Of course, we may justifiably fulfill our desires. And there room does indeed exist for justification: "I want x, it is morally permissible for me to do y in order to attain it, so I do y."

But your entire point was that "pure fulfillment of desire" allows us to ignore considerations of rightness, and my point was that it does--but only by also ignoring justification.

Analysis in organizations is more difficult, but the general outlines to follow would be via publicly stated goals, and comparisons to its supported and performed actions.

But this still tells us absolutely nothing about the justice of the principles by which the organization abides.

For that, as I have been insisting in both arguments, we must actually directly consider their justification. We cannot get around it by pointing to the criminality of their actions, or their hypocrisy.

Yet you have mentioned that humans are not wholly rational. Yet you would argue that this flawed rationality would not affect the justification forming process?

Of course it would! Indeed, I maintain it does, on a regular basis.

But if a justification is not rational, it does not truly justify. We may be convinced that it does, but it does not.

Example. A person is shot in a robbery gone wrong. His family sues the firearms industry for supplying the firearm despite the weapon being illegally acquired. What is the rationality for that justification?

I'd have to actually see the argument they used, but speaking generally, there's no question that people sometimes justify things on irrational bases.

But because they are irrational, those justifications fail.

Rational justifications require that logic and reason are capable of working through them without encountering an inconsistency. That conflict with human psychology would indicate that there is a problem encountered under that logic test.

You're speaking vaguely to preserve the ambiguity between inconsistency with behavior and inconsistency with other intellectual positions.

The interference with human psychology can lead to either, but only the latter is a basis for telling someone to modify his or her principles.

I have issue with your opening statement. Unless my understanding of the English language has degraded significantly, a hypocrite is one who, at the very core, says one thing, but does another.

But here the person says one thing--"meat-eating is morally permissible"--and does the same--eats meat. (Not that people with no moral problems with meat-eating can't non-hypocritically be vegetarians, but you get the idea.)

The problem is that if the person were honest with herself, if she were willing to fully rationally consider her justifications for meat-eating and the arguments against them, she would conclude that meat-eating is not morally permissible. Because she is afraid, because she wishes to preserve her convenience, she does not do so. She is being intellectually dishonest; she is letting the irrational elements of human psychology interfere with the justification process.

But the person who concludes that his lifestyle is immoral is doing the opposite, even if he fails to actually act upon his conviction. He is letting his reason propel him to the right conclusions even against his own desire to avoid conflict and inconvenience.

Would not a reasoned justification also be grounded in the possibility of actually carrying out whatever course of action was reasoned for?

Yes, of course... and this alone is where a behavioral test might be useful. But there is one crucial caveat: we must not mistake great subjective difficulty for objective impossibility. Just because it may be difficult for a person to become a vegan does not mean that it is not morally obligatory. (And, it should be kept in mind, this difficulty pales in comparison to other difficulties people have successfully overcome in the pursuit of moral duty.) Only if it were somehow impossible--if, say, animal products were forcibly stuffed down the person's throat every day--would the moral prohibition not apply on that basis.

Similarly, if the person fails the behavioral test because of will--he or she is simply not willing to make the sacrifices required--that does not show impossibility, only weakness of will. And that is clearly the situation in the vast majority of cases involving hypocritical advocates of animal rights.

And for reasons I've countered, I would argue that they should be.

You have only really given one reason, and it is not a very convincing one as far as this particular case goes.

No, it isn't, but even if it were, so what?

We are still required to justify, even if we are only justifying by subjective standards--and our justifications are still tied to "right."

I argue that it is subjective because what people may construe as right is so often seen as wrong by other people. Example, the debate between the both of us prior to justification analysis.


I did indeed ignore the justification part, because of the word "pure." In pure fulfillment of desire, there is no room for justification.

Of course, we may justifiably fulfill our desires. And there room does indeed exist for justification: "I want x, it is morally permissible for me to do y in order to attain it, so I do y."

But your entire point was that "pure fulfillment of desire" allows us to ignore considerations of rightness, and my point was that it does--but only by also ignoring justification.


Fair enough. I concede the error on my part.


But this still tells us absolutely nothing about the justice of the principles by which the organization abides.

For that, as I have been insisting in both arguments, we must actually directly consider their justification. We cannot get around it by pointing to the criminality of their actions, or their hypocrisy.


Then I move to point out that neither of us actually placed the entire justification for dissection. As for justice of principles, I still object to the use of justice, being a subjective interpretation, as an arbitrary line of which to gauge the consistency of a principle.


Of course it would! Indeed, I maintain it does, on a regular basis.

But if a justification is not rational, it does not truly justify. We may be convinced that it does, but it does not.


So I would be correct in inferring from your statement that a great deal of justifications made are irrational and thus illogical and inconsistent?


You're speaking vaguely to preserve the ambiguity between inconsistency with behavior and inconsistency with other intellectual positions.


That is a consequence of not having a fixed case study unfortunately.


The interference with human psychology can lead to either, but only the latter is a basis for telling someone to modify his or her principles.


How exactly, is a principle unfollowed, a principle? It would suggest a more transient alternative than any real principle would it not?


But here the person says one thing--"meat-eating is morally permissible"--and does the same--eats meat. (Not that people with no moral problems with meat-eating can't non-hypocritically be vegetarians, but you get the idea.)


I misread your earlier statement. I see that I was mistaken in the position taken. I read it as:

the meat-eater who insists, for instance, that meat-eating is immoral


The problem is that if the person were honest with herself, if she were willing to fully rationally consider her justifications for meat-eating and the arguments against them, she would conclude that meat-eating is not morally permissible.


You speak as if rational consideration of said arguments can only produce one possible outcome.


Because she is afraid, because she wishes to preserve her convenience, she does not do so. She is being intellectually dishonest; she is letting the irrational elements of human psychology interfere with the justification process.

But the person who concludes that his lifestyle is immoral is doing the opposite, even if he fails to actually act upon his conviction. He is letting his reason propel him to the right conclusions even against his own desire to avoid conflict and inconvenience.

We have again the same problem of only one possible rational outcome. But working on that particular limitation, the intellectual positions ultimately are the same. One does not consider the justifications or otherwise dismisses them, the other one may agree, but attaches no significance to them. Both positions are differentiated by very minor differences.


Yes, of course... and this alone is where a behavioral test might be useful. But there is one crucial caveat: we must not mistake great subjective difficulty for objective impossibility. Just because it may be difficult for a person to become a vegan does not mean that it is not morally obligatory. (And, it should be kept in mind, this difficulty pales in comparison to other difficulties people have successfully overcome in the pursuit of moral duty.)


Based on your statement here, I have few alternatives but to conclude that you would agree with the application of a behavioral test on all reasoned justifications for courses of actions that are within the realm of possible.


Only if it were somehow impossible--if, say, animal products were forcibly stuffed down the person's throat every day--would the moral prohibition not apply on that basis.


I am having difficulty applying a logical sequence to this sentence. Particularly in aspects of the moral prohibition and its relation to the highlighted act as impossible.


Similarly, if the person fails the behavioral test because of will--he or she is simply not willing to make the sacrifices required--that does not show impossibility, only weakness of will. And that is clearly the situation in the vast majority of cases involving hypocritical advocates of animal rights.


I have not specified the impossibility of carrying out actions for which there are rational justifications. That is a value you assigned to it yourself.

I specifically highlight the cases within the realms of possibility, justification, and distinct lack of follow up on the justification and at times operating in direct contravention of the justification.


You have only really given one reason, and it is not a very convincing one as far as this particular case goes.

Your statement however, appears to agree with my position.

I argue that it is subjective because what people may construe as right is so often seen as wrong by other people.

"Shifting to socialism would, all else being equal, severely decrease economic efficiency."

That statement is not subjective. Nevertheless, it is a matter of intense disagreement.

Then I move to point out that neither of us actually placed the entire justification for dissection.

No, but considering that it was the opponents of animal rights who were saying that animal rights activists should be flogged and labeling them as terrorists, one would think that those opponents would be willing to offer a counter-argument to at least the well-known versions of the animal rights arguments.

As for justice of principles, I still object to the use of justice, being a subjective interpretation, as an arbitrary line of which to gauge the consistency of a principle.

"Consistency" is not a matter of justice, but of reason.

So I would be correct in inferring from your statement that a great deal of justifications made are irrational and thus illogical and inconsistent?

Absolutely.

How exactly, is a principle unfollowed, a principle?

Moral principles are matters of "ought": "I ought to do x." Whether or not I actually do x is immaterial to that obligation. Just as "is" does not imply "ought", "ought" does not imply "is."

"Ought" does, of course, imply "ought." And if someone says "I ought to always and unconditionally help people in need," and then says later "I have no obligation to help that starving person," there is a rational inconsistency there, and a problem with one or the other of her principles.

But a mere failure to act, to make the "ought" "is", proves no such thing.

You speak as if rational consideration of said arguments can only produce one possible outcome.

Well, not in the ordinary meaning of "rational consideration", clearly.

But pure rational consideration, with all possible biases eliminated and with rational thought perfect and clear, there cannot be any dispute as to which arguments are right and which arguments are wrong--any more than, within the framework of reason, 1 + 1 = 2 can be disputed.

Some conclusions follow from the premises and others do not.

That is not to say that it is impossible to fully rationally conclude that "meat-eating is morally permissible" while another person fully rationally concludes that "meat-eating is morally prohibited." This is possible, but only under different moral frameworks, with the regulating norm being consistency. For instance, under the condition that the former person is willing to accept that others are entitled to cruelly imprison and murder her for food, none of the latter person's arguments are likely to work.

But working on that particular limitation, the intellectual positions ultimately are the same. One does not consider the justifications or otherwise dismisses them, the other one may agree, but attaches no significance to them. Both positions are differentiated by very minor differences.

Insofar as behavior, yes. But I would grant the latter more esteem. At least he is honest about his faults, and the moral worth of his victims.

And still, regardless of the validity of this point, it does not show his principles to be wrong.

Based on your statement here, I have few alternatives but to conclude that you would agree with the application of a behavioral test on all reasoned justifications for courses of actions that are within the realm of possible.

No. As I said, I would only accept the validity of a behavioral test insofar as it informs us whether or not a given course of action is within the realm of the possible.

Once we know it is, behavioral tests are irrelevant. They only tell us the degree to which a person is willing to abide by the principle. They tell us nothing about the principle's validity.

I am having difficulty applying a logical sequence to this sentence. Particularly in aspects of the moral prohibition and its relation to the highlighted act as impossible.

If a person is forced to consume animal products--I mean physically forced, not just coerced into it--then it is absurd to accuse him or her of doing something wrong. There was no choice involved.

But as long as it is possible--however difficult or rare--to fulfill the obligation, moral judgment remains in effect. "Ought" does not imply "is." Failure does not imply impossibility.

Edit: Of course, extenuating circumstances might suspend the application of the principle--just as we might be permitted to deceive others to save lives--but such a suspension must be justified at the level of principles, the level of "ought."

I specifically highlight the cases within the realms of possibility, justification, and distinct lack of follow up on the justification and at times operating in direct contravention of the justification.

Then you have no basis whatsoever to demand behavioral tests.

Your statement however, appears to agree with my position.

I fail to see how.

Wheat (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill) is murder.

Wheat (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill) is murder.

Driving is murder!

:rolleyes:

Breathing is murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria

That is carrying it to a further level of absurdity.

At least growing crops (like driving accidents) kills sentient beings.

Driving is murder!

:rolleyes:

Breathing is murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria

I work in the biological sciences. I use animals in my research. If you would like to know how animal research actually works (at least in the USA), I would be happy to answer your questions.

My sister has just sent me a link on how Mars does cruel experiments on animals. (Yes, it's a PETA link. She's usually quite critical of PETA, but when they do expose this kind of stuff they're useful. Which is what I meant when I said that you can't cast them as always entirely bad).


Mars has funded cruel experiments in which mice were fed a candy ingredient and forced to swim in a pool of paint. The mice had to find a platform to try to avoid drowning, only to be killed and dissected later. In another experiment supported by Mars, rats were fed cocoa and anesthetized with carbon dioxide so that their blood could be collected by cardiac puncture, a procedure that can lead to internal bleeding and other deadly complications. Mars also supported an experiment that involved cramming baby mice into small Plexiglas chambers and then submerging the chambers for nearly five hours in a chilled water bath to determine whether or not a chocolate ingredient affected the mice's breathing rates. In the second phase of this test, experimenters shoved tubes down mice's throats to force-feed them an ingredient in chocolate, deprived them of all other food, and finally killed them and cut them up for analysis.


(link (http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/mars_animal_tests?c=weekly_enews))

You're not seriously denying that cruel and entirely unnecessary experiments on animals happen, are you?

My sister has just sent me a link on how Mars does cruel experiments on animals. (Yes, it's a PETA link. She's usually quite critical of PETA, but when they do expose this kind of stuff they're useful. Which is what I meant when I said that you can't cast them as always entirely bad).

And the evidence that this actually happened is where?

"Shifting to socialism would, all else being equal, severely decrease economic efficiency."

That statement is not subjective. Nevertheless, it is a matter of intense disagreement.


Now you are putting up strawmen. You are shifting the aspect of subjectivity to statement where the argument was on the justifications for it.


No, but considering that it was the opponents of animal rights who were saying that animal rights activists should be flogged and labeling them as terrorists, one would think that those opponents would be willing to offer a counter-argument to at least the well-known versions of the animal rights arguments.

A criminal is a criminal, regardless of the justification for the crime. Attaching emotional appeals to the criminals's defense based on non-legal justifications (i.e. self defense) is at best, irrational.


"Consistency" is not a matter of justice, but of reason.


But you have argued in a manner that links reason and justice along with right as one and the same.


Moral principles are matters of "ought": "I ought to do x." Whether or not I actually do x is immaterial to that obligation. Just as "is" does not imply "ought", "ought" does not imply "is."

"Ought" does, of course, imply "ought." And if someone says "I ought to always and unconditionally help people in need," and then says later "I have no obligation to help that starving person," there is a rational inconsistency there, and a problem with one or the other of her principles.

But a mere failure to act, to make the "ought" "is", proves no such thing.


This suggests to me a certain flexibility of principle.


Well, not in the ordinary meaning of "rational consideration", clearly.

But pure rational consideration, with all possible biases eliminated and with rational thought perfect and clear, there cannot be any dispute as to which arguments are right and which arguments are wrong--any more than, within the framework of reason, 1 + 1 = 2 can be disputed.

Some conclusions follow from the premises and others do not.

That is not to say that it is impossible to fully rationally conclude that "meat-eating is morally permissible" while another person fully rationally concludes that "meat-eating is morally prohibited." This is possible, but only under different moral frameworks, with the regulating norm being consistency. For instance, under the condition that the former person is willing to accept that others are entitled to cruelly imprison and murder her for food, none of the latter person's arguments are likely to work.


Your first and last paragraphs conflict with one another. Since moral frameworks are highly individual, and by your own admission, class the worth of a justification based on said framework, a purely rational analysis of a justification without any moral framework would not produce any conclusion of its "rightness". It would be much like asking a computer to define good and evil.

As such, a logical conclusion is that there is no one possible rational conclusion insofar as whether something is "right" or not.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.


Insofar as behavior, yes. But I would grant the latter more esteem. At least he is honest about his faults, and the moral worth of his victims.

And still, regardless of the validity of this point, it does not show his principles to be wrong.


Dissecting the principles would require a highlighting of justifications. I cannot do that unless you bring them forth can I?


No. As I said, I would only accept the validity of a behavioral test insofar as it informs us whether or not a given course of action is within the realm of the possible.

Once we know it is, behavioral tests are irrelevant. They only tell us the degree to which a person is willing to abide by the principle. They tell us nothing about the principle's validity.

The validity of a principle is determined by the justification that supports it. Failure of adherence to the principle indicates either inconsistent or weak justifications.


Then you have no basis whatsoever to demand behavioral tests.


According to your viewpoints perhaps. I still see the behavioral tests as necessary at the very least to determine the strength of the justifications.


I fail to see how.

Incorrect interpretation of your statement.

Failure of adherence to the principle indicates either inconsistent or weak justifications.

No, it doesn't.

Seeing as how I have explained why again and again, and you have yet to provide a good basis for believing otherwise, I see no reason to continue this.

No, it doesn't.

Seeing as how I have explained why again and again, and you have yet to provide a good basis for believing otherwise, I see no reason to continue this.

Really? No good basis? Explain to me this then. If one is capable of performing a said action, has justified it, but chooses not to, is not that justification (which was formed on a personal basis), weak then? You argue that the validity of a justification is separate from carrying out what was justified. That it can be both rational and logical and yet be contravened by actions.

That it somehow, at the crux of this entire argument, is not hypocritical.

Yet hypocrisy is defined by the disconnect between principle and action. That when convenient, the principle is not applied universally despite the universal nature of the principle.

You have not shown any good reason why it should be otherwise. You have argued that will and conviction are separate, but not shown why that is the case in a logical manner.

I would agree. There is no real reason to continue this debate. But I cast back your accusations at you. What you accuse me of, is no different than what you are doing.

it is an intersting state of affairs, that anyone who tries to do anything decent and considerate for anyone other then themselves is demonized for doing so. the points of difference between such a condition and that which is called tyranny seem to escape my comprehension.

=^^=
.../\...

If one is capable of performing a said action, has justified it, but chooses not to, is not that justification (which was formed on a personal basis), weak then?

No. Conclusions follow from premises (or don't) regardless of whether or not the person is willing to abide by those conclusions in her behavior.

This is not a difficult point to grasp. To deny it is to engage in the ad hominem fallacy--to mistake attacking the person for attacking the argument.

That it somehow, at the crux of this entire argument, is not hypocritical.

I have argued nothing of the sort.

That when convenient, the principle is not applied universally despite the universal nature of the principle.

As usual, you equivocate between applying it universally in a logical sense and applying it universally in a behavioral sense.

You do so, of course, because if you do not do so your argument sounds absurd--as it is. As long as a careful distinction is preserved between "ought" and "is", between the intellectual realization of obligation and the behavioral reality of compliance, there is no basis at all for conflating failures in behavior with intellectual failures of reason.

You have argued that will and conviction are separate

They are. Hence the concept of "temptation." Hence the concept of a "weak will." Hence the reality of moral failure--of people who, knowing what is wrong, do it anyway.

You know these things exist. If you are a morally decent person, if you have the honesty and humility to consider what you ought to do independent of what is convenient to you, you already have experience with them in the moral context--because no human is so perfect as to fulfill every one of their moral obligations. Even if you are not, you still have the experience of doing what you know is "wrong" every time you have caved in to your desire for something knowing that you would be better off forgoing it. (For an example of this, note me continuing this argument, for the sake of pride, despite my realization that it is almost certainly futile and a waste of my time.)

Just because we conclude that we ought to do something does not mean that we will actually do it. Just because we do not actually do it does not in the slightest change our obligation, or weaken it.

I am sure that in other contexts you would never deny this conclusion. Most obviously, you have behaved hypocritically in the past (everyone has), but I doubt you think that makes your arguments against hypocrisy any weaker.

but not shown why that is the case in a logical manner.

I have done exactly that, repeatedly.

Stubbornness, you will find, is not much of an argument.

I have argued nothing of the sort.


Was not the seed of this argument the determination of hypocrisy?


They are. Hence the concept of "temptation." Hence the concept of a "weak will." Hence the reality of moral failure--of people who, knowing what is wrong, do it anyway.

Let's say you are correct. But this moral failure you speak of, it would also affect the reasons used to create the justification correct? If so, following on your original premise of justifications and external analysis of them, what weightage would you give to an argument that originates from one who does not act it?


You know these things exist. If you are a morally decent person, if you have the honesty and humility to consider what you ought to do independent of what is convenient to you, you already have experience with them in the moral context--because no human is so perfect as to fulfill every one of their moral obligations.


And if were an honest Machivalean, your argument would appeal to moral framework I wouldn't have.


(For an example of this, note me continuing this argument, for the sake of pride, despite my realization that it is almost certainly futile and a waste of my time.)

I find it ironically amusing, this particular statement. Why do you think I have continued to reply?


I am sure that in other contexts you would never deny this conclusion.


I contend that this assumption cannot function without a case example. You have argued long and hard for solely intellectual testing of justification to detect hypocrisy. Now is your opportunity to prove its worth.


Most obviously, you have behaved hypocritically in the past (everyone has), but I doubt you think that makes your arguments against hypocrisy any weaker.

Have I? Perhaps. However, note my earlier statement of acceptance of any hypocrisy on my part being pointed out. I won't claim to be perfect, but I have, and continue to excise any instance of known hypocrisy from my psychological makeup.

I would be quite the hypocrite to have a stance against it and maintain my own after all.

Was not the seed of this argument the determination of hypocrisy?

No... it was whether or not we can conclude anything about the argument from the hypocrisy of the speaker.

Let's say you are correct. But this moral failure you speak of, it would also affect the reasons used to create the justification correct?

Not in the slightest.

All it would mean is that in that particular instance, I am acting on unjustified reasons.

And if were an honest Machivalean, your argument would appeal to moral framework I wouldn't have.

If you have ever read The Prince, you will recall that it is full of prescriptive statements.

If I am an honest Machiavellian leader, I will have experience with failures of will every time I fail to do what I know is prudent--out of kindness, or out of fear, or out of some moral scruple.

I won't claim to be perfect, but I have, and continue to excise any instance of known hypocrisy from my psychological makeup.

From "[your] psychological makeup"... interesting phrasing.

If it indicates that you abandon moral beliefs that you yourself do not follow, then you have simply taken what is, for you, the easy way out: intellectual dishonesty over behavioral hypocrisy.

You have no grounds to criticize anyone for taking the other path--not insofar as declaring them any worse than you, anyway. And, like I said, at least on a subjective emotional level the latter strikes me as much the better.

If you have ever read The Prince, you will recall that it is full of prescriptive statements.

If I am an honest Machiavellian leader, I will have experience with failures of will every time I fail to do what I know is prudent--out of kindness, or out of fear, or out of some moral scruple.

Is that so? My understanding of a Machiavellian personality is that of the ultimate pragmatist driven by personal well being. Any and all courses of action are considered so long as they deliver the results achieved without unacceptable backlash. Such a moral framework would be considerably self centered. Any experience with failures of will would be from other people who are manipulated to specific ends.

Externally known scruples and behavior would be hypocritical, but internal scruples (the real ones because a Machiavellian would likely have false external scruples for deceptive purposes), would correlate with behavior.


From "[your] psychological makeup"... interesting phrasing.

If it indicates that you abandon moral beliefs that you yourself do not follow, then you have simply taken what is, for you, the easy way out: intellectual dishonesty over behavioral hypocrisy.

This is a false assumption. Hypocrisy of my own is removed. It does not preclude analysis and acceptance of external justifications so long as they do not introduce further hypocrisy.

Furthermore, earlier you mentioned that moral frameworks create different conclusions on an argument presented. I would urge you to keep that in mind when making assumptions about what sort of moral argument would function in my moral framework and what I would do with it.

Why do people get cancer? Either they were exposed to cancer causing agents, or they inherited it.

Everything is a cancer causing agent nowadays, all it takes is a bit of damage to the wrong part of the DNA in a cell and BAM. Out of control reproduction smothering everything.

I don't see how the basic premise is bad, but it could be taken to extremes.

Humans tend to adapt and create their own strength in several aspects some of which you can't breed. In theory it could work, but it's too difficult to figure out what you're trying to do and while you could end up getting something out of it you lose too much in the process. Eugenics is part of a slippery slope that is best kept away from.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that that's the last time I said I wasn't a vegetarian... excepting a post where I noted I make an exception for fish, on the moral basis that the (un-farmed) ones aren't subject to the long-term horrific imprisonment suffered by animals in factory farms, and that their capacity to feel pain isn't equivalent to that of mammals or birds.

I'm personally more worried about the dangers of overfishing.

Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything... the real question is how "advanced" their nervous system is.

What if we breed/engineered animals that couldn't feel pain?

My sister has just sent me a link on how Mars does cruel experiments on animals. (Yes, it's a PETA link. She's usually quite critical of PETA, but when they do expose this kind of stuff they're useful. Which is what I meant when I said that you can't cast them as always entirely bad).

(link (http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/mars_animal_tests?c=weekly_enews))

You're not seriously denying that cruel and entirely unnecessary experiments on animals happen, are you?

Tell me why they were conducting the experiments, then I'll make my own judgement on whether they're necessary or not. Also I noticed...

Mars also supported an experiment that involved cramming baby mice into small Plexiglas chambers and then submerging the chambers for nearly five hours in a chilled water bath to determine whether or not a chocolate ingredient affected the mice's breathing rates.
Before stocking up on candy this Halloween, you should know that chocolate-maker Mars Inc.—creator of M&M's, Snickers, and other candies—continues to fund deadly animal tests despite the fact that the tests are not required by law and more reliable human studies could be used instead.

I'm sure that that not testing or testing a potential respiratory modifier on humans would go down well if something went wrong.

My sister has just sent me a link on how Mars does cruel experiments on animals. (Yes, it's a PETA link. She's usually quite critical of PETA, but when they do expose this kind of stuff they're useful. Which is what I meant when I said that you can't cast them as always entirely bad).

(link (http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/mars_animal_tests?c=weekly_enews))

You're not seriously denying that cruel and entirely unnecessary experiments on animals happen, are you?
Well, first of all, the fact that you've provided a PETA link kind of undermines your argument. A PETA link is worse than nothing, frankly. Your own paragraph establishes why.

For instance, the first experiment described in that paragraph you quoted is a very common one, and it's not remotely "cruel" or "entirely unnecessary." It's called the Morris Water Maze, and it's actually a key experiment used in the study of spatial learning. Any first-year animal biology student would know this, and would also be able to point out the mistakes in your quoted paragraph.

First of all, it's not a bucket of paint that the mice/rats swim in. It's a small pool filled with water. A platform is hidden just under the surface of the water. Often the water is rendered opaque using some harmless substance, to hide the platform more effectively.

The point of the maze is to see how quickly animals learn to find the hidden platform, and how well they remember where it is. Landmarks around the room can help a mouse or rat orient themselves.

Various drugs can be administered to the animals to test their impact on performance in this test. For instance, if APV (a substance that blocks NMDA receptors) is administered, animals will perform very poorly in the water maze. This gives us valuable information about the role of various receptors and pathways in spatial memory and learning.

Animals are not allowed to drown in the water maze. If an animal is obviously floundering, it will be lifted out of the pool. Please remember that swimming does not harm rats or mice. Experimenters are trained to know exactly how long it is appropriate to leave an animal in the tank, and they are strongly motivated to prevent distress to the animals.

And yes, animals are generally killed at the end of such experiments. This is a part of animal research. It's not one that I'm thrilled about, but I certainly think it's as valid as consuming animals for food.

Anyway, my point is that you're quoting a source that was clearly written by people who don't even have the most basic knowledge of animal research. You probably should stop taking their word for anything.

...

you are far more patient than i

What if we breed/engineered animals that couldn't feel pain?


Like the Dish of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ruler_of_the_Universe#Dish_of_the_Day

Like the Dish of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ruler_of_the_Universe#Dish_of_the_Day

Sort of. It wouldn't be worth the time, effort and money to get it to talk though.

What if we breed/engineered animals that couldn't feel pain?

Then those animals would only have very limited value for research, seeing as how they would have abnormal nervous systems.

the rabbit?

But what about the rabbit's rights?

Surely if we can't eat it, being animals ourselves, then clearly we cannot permit other animals to eat it!

And after we've dealt with the carnivorous species, what about the herbivorous? After all, plants are alive, too!

VEGETABLE RIGHTS AND PEACE!

A biscuit for whoever gets the reference.

Is that so? My understanding of a Machiavellian personality is that of the ultimate pragmatist driven by personal well being.

Even if we were to grant this conception without dispute (there's room for argument), we still would have a notion of failures of will.

The "ultimate pragmatist" is concerned for prudence: she strives to do what is in her own best interest. Sometimes that means not doing things that she might want to do, so as to achieve greater benefits later.

If the temptation to immediate gratification is great enough, the will of the "ultimate pragmatist" might fail and she might do what she is tempted to do over what she knows is prudent.

Pragmatism is not mindless, irrational hedonism.

so long as they deliver the results achieved

And if they do not--even if we are inclined to do them--we are told not to, because they are not prudent.

Externally known scruples and behavior would be hypocritical, but internal scruples (the real ones because a Machiavellian would likely have false external scruples for deceptive purposes), would correlate with behavior.

Not if I have internal moral scruples that disincline me to use the means I must in a world full of evil people seeking to undermine me.

This is a false assumption. Hypocrisy of my own is removed. It does not preclude analysis and acceptance of external justifications so long as they do not introduce further hypocrisy.

"So long as..." Exactly. You will go with intellectual dishonesty over hypocrisy.

Truth has no "so long as." It is not required to be convenient.

The "ultimate pragmatist" is concerned for prudence: she strives to do what is in her own best interest. Sometimes that means not doing things that she might want to do, so as to achieve greater benefits later.


But the restraint would be part of the overall moral structure would it not? It would not be any form of dishonesty on their part to suppress a transient desire for achievement of a greater goal.


If the temptation to immediate gratification is great enough, the will of the "ultimate pragmatist" might fail and she might do what she is tempted to do over what she knows is prudent.

Then the pragmatist would not be an ultimate pragmatist then would she?


Pragmatism is not mindless, irrational hedonism.


Where on earth did I say that?


And if they do not--even if we are inclined to do them--we are told not to, because they are not prudent.

You snipped out the caveat of care against backlash I see. Machiavellians to my understanding would be quite concerned about consequences and work to minimize them.



Not if I have internal moral scruples that disincline me to use the means I must in a world full of evil people seeking to undermine me.

Then you are not a Machiavellian. You cannot claim to have attributes that a psychological set would not have and then claim to be part of that set.


"So long as..." Exactly. You will go with intellectual dishonesty over hypocrisy.

Truth has no "so long as." It is not required to be convenient.

Intellectual dishonesty you claim. But then earlier you had claimed different interpretations that were both honest and rational. Now you change your tune. I see rational reasonings to be lacking in hypocrisy. But you claim that they can and still be rational.

You change your coats quite a few times it seems.

Or perhaps you are using Schroedinger's argument.

But even if we were to utilize your argument as "truth" without any conflict, I find the claim that you hold behavioral hypocrisy to be of higher esteem than intellectual dishonesty to be in itself, a claim that could be interpreted to support hypocrisy.

Do you also support people telling others how to behave in a certain way, but do otherwise themselves then?

But the restraint would be part of the overall moral structure would it not? It would not be any form of dishonesty on their part to suppress a transient desire for achievement of a greater goal.

You have utterly missed the point.

Then the pragmatist would not be an ultimate pragmatist then would she?

She would fail to comply with the behavioral dictates of pragmatism. But she may still believe in it.

As I said, even a Machiavellian will have experience with failures of will--as you insisted was impossible.

You snipped out the caveat of care against backlash I see.

Because it is totally irrelevant.

Then you are not a Machiavellian.

Just as I can be a moral altruist while feeling selfish desires, I can be a Machiavellian while feeling moral scruples that interfere with prudence.

What matters is how I perceive what I should do.

Intellectual dishonesty you claim. But then earlier you had claimed different interpretations that were both honest and rational.

What does that have to do with anything?

You said:

"It does not preclude analysis and acceptance of external justifications so long as they do not introduce further hypocrisy."

This is practically an admission of intellectual dishonesty. It means you will rationally consider things only if doing so does not lead to conclusions contrary to your behavior.

The fact that there are different "right" answers does not mean that there are no wrong ones... and pretty much all of the right ones tend to be rather contrary to our inclinations, making us vulnerable to hypocrisy.

Now you change your tune. I see rational reasonings to be lacking in hypocrisy.

The reasonings are not hypocritical.

The behavior may be.

But you claim that they can and still be rational.

Obviously. The reasoning behind arguments does not depend on the speaker.

Why are you so resistant to this rather simple notion?

You change your coats quite a few times it seems.

Not once in this argument, whatever random nonsense you concoct to make you sound vaguely like you are making sense.

Obviously. The reasoning behind arguments does not depend on the speaker.

Why are you so resistant to this rather simple notion?

given the way they were arguing before you or i jumped in, "because it is coming from the enemy"

given the way they were arguing before you or i jumped in, "because it is coming from the enemy"

Yeah... this topic, like religion, seems to be one where anything at all will do to avoid troublesome conclusions.

She would fail to comply with the behavioral dictates of pragmatism. But she may still believe in it.


Belief has nothing to do with fact.


Just as I can be a moral altruist while feeling selfish desires, I can be a Machiavellian while feeling moral scruples that interfere with prudence.

What matters is how I perceive what I should do.

Then you would classify as a low-Mach. Not a high-Mach.


You said:

"It does not preclude analysis and acceptance of external justifications so long as they do not introduce further hypocrisy."

This is practically an admission of intellectual dishonesty. It means you will rationally consider things only if doing so does not lead to conclusions contrary to your behavior.

The reasonings are not hypocritical.

The behavior may be.


Are you arguing that there is no such thing as hypocritical reasoning?


The fact that there are different "right" answers does not mean that there are no wrong ones... and pretty much all of the right ones tend to be rather contrary to our inclinations, making us vulnerable to hypocrisy.


So you are now the sole authority of what is a "right" answer? Many people have claimed that before.

There are factual answers. And there are "right" answers. They need not be one and the same.


Not once in this argument, whatever random nonsense you concoct to make you sound vaguely like you are making sense.

So you claim. I highlight instances I see as such, but you claim they are not without explaining why. I do not project either of us ever changing our stances on this issue, regardless of what arguments or insults and arbitrary judgments are thrown.

Belief has nothing to do with fact.

But something even its alleged advocates do not believe is probably not very compelling, rationally or non-rationally.

If you deny that, your position becomes even more absurd than it already is.

Then you would classify as a low-Mach. Not a high-Mach.

Maybe. So?

Are you arguing that there is no such thing as hypocritical reasoning?

In the sense of "inconsistent" reasoning, of course.

But behavioral hypocrisy does not imply it.

So you are now the sole authority of what is a "right" answer?

Saying that right answers and wrong answers exist is not the same thing as saying that I am the "sole authority" as to which are which.

I highlight instances I see as such, but you claim they are not without explaining why.

I have explained everything I have said. Again and again.

It is not my fault if you are too willfully dense to understand.

I do not project either of us ever changing our stances on this issue

I will not, because the essence of my position is obviously, almost trivially true.

You will not, because despite my demonstrating my point far beyond any reasonable standard of sufficiency, you still refuse to accept it.

I reached that conclusion a long time ago. I continue out of pride (I don't like to see my arguments misrepresented), out of a desire to ensure that anyone who reads this argument (if there ever are any) will recognize the flaws in your arguments, and in the hope that some time in the future you may realize the absurdity of the position you are here advancing.

But something even its alleged advocates do not believe is probably not very compelling, rationally or non-rationally.


What?


Maybe. So?


Then you wouldn't be a Machiavellian to begin with.



Saying that right answers and wrong answers exist is not the same thing as saying that I am the "sole authority" as to which are which.


Saying this, after saying the following:


The fact that there are different "right" answers does not mean that there are no wrong ones... and pretty much all of the right ones tend to be rather contrary to our inclinations, making us vulnerable to hypocrisy.


Tells a great deal about what you think of yourself as an arbiter of what is and isn't "right".

Now who is applying hypocritical reasoning hmm?


You will not, because despite my demonstrating my point far beyond any reasonable standard of sufficiency, you still refuse to accept it.


Have you ever entertained the thought that your "reason" does not appear reasonable to me? I very much doubt that. I simply do not see the two thought processes as separate despite your objections otherwise.

What?

If even the people who claim to support a position do not, in fact, support it, it is not likely to be a very well-founded position.

(Unless, of course, there are very strong emotional barriers to believing it--as, say, in the case of skepticism.)

Then you wouldn't be a Machiavellian to begin with.

You're equivocating.

Tells a great deal about what you think of yourself as an arbiter of what is and isn't "right".

You clearly don't know what "arbiter" means.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what is involved in determining which answers are right and which are wrong. But I do not determine the standard. I merely understand it.

Nor am I sure that I always apply the standard correctly... but because it is a purely rational standard, a standard that is not dependent on our inclinations, there tends to be a conflict.

Have you ever entertained the thought that your "reason" does not appear reasonable to me?

Yes.

But unless you an alien species with a different understanding of "rationality" than us humans....

I simply do not see the two thought processes as separate

There is the thought process of practical reason: "what should I do?" Then there is actually doing it. This is not so much a "thought process" as it is a matter of will.

The separation between the two is not difficult to grasp: it follows directly from the "ought" and "is" distinction. Just because I recognize that I ought to only be motivated by certain reasons does not mean that they are the only reasons that will in fact motivate me.

If even the people who claim to support a position do not, in fact, support it, it is not likely to be a very well-founded position.

(Unless, of course, there are very strong emotional barriers to believing it--as, say, in the case of skepticism.)

I am having a great deal of difficulty linking your argument of false support for a position weakening its position to the earlier mention of a supposed Machiavellian failing to be one in actuality.


You're equivocating.


When it comes to states, it is, or isn't. You are either a Machiavellian, or are not. Low-Machs are not considered to be Machiavellian. High-Machs are.


You clearly don't know what "arbiter" means.


Referee, or a person who renders judgment.


I think I have a pretty good idea of what is involved in determining which answers are right and which are wrong. But I do not determine the standard. I merely understand it.

The act of determining an answer as being right or wrong already puts a judgment on it.


Nor am I sure that I always apply the standard correctly... but because it is a purely rational standard, a standard that is not dependent on our inclinations, there tends to be a conflict.

That is an assumption of conflict.



Yes.

But unless you an alien species with a different understanding of "rationality" than us humans....

What exactly, would you consider rational?


There is the thought process of practical reason: "what should I do?" Then there is actually doing it. This is not so much a "thought process" as it is a matter of will.

The separation between the two is not difficult to grasp: it follows directly from the "ought" and "is" distinction. Just because I recognize that I ought to only be motivated by certain reasons does not mean that they are the only reasons that will in fact motivate me.

Then this is the problem. How you see the thought process carry through from opinion to action is completely different from mine.

In a sapient being, an ought to would translate to action unless there is something blocking the "ought". In highly suggestible humans, that aspect of blocking is minimal, but more in others. It takes various forms, but it is always related to the thought process itself. Reasons not to, doubt, etc, etc. The "is" distinction is only relevant as to how it relates to "ought".

The thought process however, the very same one that came to an "ought", influences the action. And this is where you and I go our separate ways viewpoint wise.

At the end of it, the fundamental difference in our viewpoints is that you see human thought process as compartmentalized, separate from one another. Especially when the thought process translates to action and when it does to opinion forming.

I see them as an interlinked network, with every aspect influencing the other.

I am having a great deal of difficulty linking your argument of false support for a position weakening its position to the earlier mention of a supposed Machiavellian failing to be one in actuality.

That is not "false support."

Generally (not always), when a person falsely advocates a certain belief, they have a good reason for not subscribing to it.

The same is simply not true for failing to act on our beliefs.

When it comes to states, it is, or isn't. You are either a Machiavellian, or are not.

Yes, and feeling moral scruples does not make you not Machiavellian. Any more than feeling selfish desires means you don't believe in moral altruism.

The act of determining an answer as being right or wrong already puts a judgment on it.

But I do not "determine" this... I merely recognize it.

The "arbiter" is reason.

That is an assumption of conflict.

No... it is a conclusion of (probable) conflict.

What exactly, would you consider rational?

The short answer is a rationally consistent system of moral rules.

It takes various forms, but it is always related to the thought process itself.

No, it isn't.

For an obvious example, I might refrain from acting on an "ought" because I am afraid of the consequences of doing so, or desirous of the consequences of not doing so.

Neither of those have the slightest thing to do with the justification for the "ought."

The thought process however, the very same one that came to an "ought", influences the action.

Yes. But the action does not influence the thought process. Not unless we are intellectually dishonest like you, and are so afraid of hypocrisy that we deny what would otherwise be rationally apparent to us. And that, like I've said from the start, would be consistent with a lack of hypocrisy--while your entire argument has been dependent on the presence of hypocrisy indicating a flaw in the thought process.

At the end of it, the fundamental difference in our viewpoints is that you see human thought process as compartmentalized, separate from one another.

No, I don't. I simply deny that their "interlinked" status proves what you want it to prove.

Indeed, it seems to indicate the precise opposite.

NAS: Stop speaking vaguely and ambiguously about the "interlinked" status of thought and action. Give me something more substantive than that.

Give me one clear, good reason to hold a hypocrite's moral beliefs substantially more suspect than a non-hypocrite's.

One.

But I do not "determine" this... I merely recognize it.

The "arbiter" is reason.


Recognition of right and wrong of reasons. Whatever the case, you already have a preconceived set of right and wrong and by holding up the reason to said preconception, you "recognize" it.

There is no appreciable difference between "recognition" and "determining".


The short answer is a rationally consistent system of moral rules.


And these moral rules are? Universally consistent across the human spectrum? Or for that matter, cultural, religious or societal spectrums?


For an obvious example, I might refrain from acting on an "ought" because I am afraid of the consequences of doing so, or desirous of the consequences of not doing so.

Fear/desire of the consequences is part of the thought process.


Neither of those have the slightest thing to do with the justification for the "ought."

The same medium.


Indeed, it seems to indicate the precise opposite.

In what manner?


Give me one clear, good reason to hold a hypocrite's moral beliefs substantially more suspect than a non-hypocrite's.

You are familiar with the term "actions speak louder than words"?

A hypocrites moral beliefs are flexible. Discarded on the outside when convenient while claiming never to have discarded them at all.

That is more dishonest to me than any claim of "intellectual dishonesty".

But that doesn't really weigh that way in your moral framework does it?

You are familiar with the term "actions speak louder than words"?

A hypocrites moral beliefs are flexible. Discarded on the outside when convenient while claiming never to have discarded them at all.

That is more dishonest to me than any claim of "intellectual dishonesty".

But that doesn't really weigh that way in your moral framework does it?

Not one?

We've been going on two days and dozens of posts and the best you can manage is an attack on the hypocrite, with no explanation as to how it bears on the actual argument--which, you will recall, is what we are discussing?

Pathetic.

Then those animals would only have very limited value for research, seeing as how they would have abnormal nervous systems.

I meant for eating.

One more thing. Am I the only one completely skipping the huge Soheran-NAS Exchanges?

I meant for eating.

Oh. Well fine then.

:P


One more thing. Am I the only one completely skipping the huge Soheran-NAS Exchanges?
I'm just staying out of it, because by the time I read enough to understand the thread of their conversation there's another two page-long posts up. Have at it, lads! (Lasses?)

Not one?

We've been going on two days and dozens of posts and the best you can manage is an attack on the hypocrite, with no explanation as to how it bears on the actual argument--which, you will recall, is what we are discussing?

Pathetic.

So now the argument is separate from its originator? When you specifically ask for a reason why to suspect the argument from an originator? One who's motives and actions are suspect?

And then you claim it is pathetic?

You have specifically worded your question to garner an answer in this aspect, and because you do not like it, you refuse to even acknowledge it. You have failed to follow your own espoused standards.

I wonder who is the dishonest one here now?

So now the argument is separate from its originator?

yes. but not 'now'. always. premises, conclusion, logical connection between. if you don't like a conclusion then you must argue against either the premises or demonstrate a flaw in the logic of the argument. there is no other option. your position in this is just the fucking formal ad hominem fallacy. it don't fucking work son.

yes. but not 'now'. always. premises, conclusion, logical connection between. if you don't like a conclusion then you must argue against either the premises or demonstrate a flaw in the logic of the argument. there is no other option. your position in this is just the fucking formal ad hominem fallacy. it don't fucking work son.

Only when factual conclusions are made.

Opinion and moral stance conclusions? Which directly bear on a person's own personality? No.

I'm just staying out of it, because by the time I read enough to understand the thread of their conversation there's another two page-long posts up. Have at it, lads! (Lasses?)

I don't want to do the unnecessary thinking. When I need to think on that level I have to push this weird fuzz/buzz/mess of thoughts out of that part of my thinking space, it takes a lot of effort and a good reason to do that.

Only when factual conclusions are made.

Opinion and moral stance conclusions?

premises, conclusion, logical connection between. that is all the there there for any argument. don't like a moral conclusion, attack the moral premises on which it is based or the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. as far as logic is concerned the only difference between moral arguments and 'factual' ones is the use of the word ought rather than is. but logic doesn't care, as long as the conclusion actually does follow.

Have at it, lads! (Lasses?)

Cover both bases. Go with entities. :p

premises, conclusion, logical connection between. that is all the there there for any argument. don't like a moral conclusion, attack the moral premises on which it is based or the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. as far as logic is concerned the only difference between moral arguments and 'factual' ones is the use of the word ought rather than is. but logic doesn't care, as long as the conclusion actually does follow.

A moral conclusion is only as strong as a person's conviction with it. If it's so easily thrown aside...

You know what? Forget it. We're going to just repeat the whole business between Soheran and I.

A moral conclusion is only as strong as a person's conviction with it.

no, it really really isn't. honestly, you have no case on this point because you can have no case on this point. arguments are separate from actors, from actions, from convictions, from anything other than the argument itself. your argument is invalid and is actually a well known logical fallacy.

the reason things are going around in circles is because you refuse to deal in logic for some reason.

no, it really really isn't. honestly, you have no case on this point because you can have no case on this point. arguments are separate from actors, from actions, from convictions, from anything other than the argument itself. your argument is invalid and is actually a well known logical fallacy.

Well known bollocks.

Arguments aren't separate from actors. Arguments are formed by actors. No argument ever sprang from nothingness. No actor, no argument. Actors as argument formers, affect them with their own strengths and weaknesses.

I'll take a page out of Soheran's tactics and apply generalizations. Extremely few people would acknowledge to themselves that they are being hypocritical, especially when it comes to the disconnect of their own opinions and actions. That's why there's cognitive dissonance.

No fully rational, completely logical argument could ever be made for a stance/action by a hypocrite who has no intention of following through on it without creating loopholes to weasel out of it, sabotaging the argument to begin with. That's why a hypocrites argument, especially when arguing areas where she is known to be hypocritical in, is more suspect than a non-hypocrite.

You want to argue that it can be made, prove it. Don't provide conjecture.

I don't want to do the unnecessary thinking. When I need to think on that level I have to push this weird fuzz/buzz/mess of thoughts out of that part of my thinking space, it takes a lot of effort and a good reason to do that.

It's the length that's a turnoff. It's why I tend to step out whenever Jocabia or Dem enter a debate.

Actors as argument formers, affect them with their own strengths and weaknesses.

no. they fucking don't. all an argument is is a set of statements called premises that are claimed to lead to another statement called a conclusion. when looking at an argument, the arguer is utterly irrelevant. arguments stand or fall on their own.

So now the argument is separate from its originator? When you specifically ask for a reason why to suspect the argument from an originator?

That's the funniest thing I've read in a while. Thanks.

Edit: Consider.

Person A: 2 + 2 = 5.
Person B: Nonsense! 2 + 2 = 4.
Person A: 2 + 2 = 5!
Person B: *gives long, detailed explanation of why 2 + 2 does not equal 5*
Person A: 2 + 2 = 5!
Person B: *repeats explanation*

This goes on for a while. Then:

Person B: I'm tired of demonstrating that you're wrong. Let's make this simple: give me one reason to suspect that 5 is the sum of 2 and 2.
Person A: *Talks vaguely about 2 + 2. Fails to explain how 5 is equal to it.*
Person B: Not one? How sad. Look, like I've said from the start, try as you will you will never legitimately get 5 out of 2 + 2.
Person A: But you asked me to explain how to get 5 out of 2 + 2! Unfair!

That's no longer even frustrating. It's just funny.

No fully rational, completely logical argument could ever be made for a stance/action by a hypocrite who has no intention of following through on it

Ever? Really?

without creating loopholes to weasel out of it

And if no loopholes are created, is she less of a hypocrite (in the sense of "expressed belief contradicting behavior")?

No. She is more of one.

It's the length that's a turnoff.

shorter soheran/nas:

"puppies are cute."
"oh yeah? you know, hitler thought puppies were cute too. i guess that makes you hitler and shows that puppies are in fact ugly."

That's the funniest thing I've read in a while. Thanks.

Edit: Consider.

Person A: 2 + 2 = 5.
Person B: Nonsense! 2 + 2 = 4.
Person A: 2 + 2 = 5!
Person B: *gives long, detailed explanation of why 2 + 2 does not equal 5*
Person A: 2 + 2 = 5!
Person B: *repeats explanation*

This goes on for a while. Then:

Person B: I'm tired of demonstrating that you're wrong. Let's make this simple: give me one reason to suspect that 5 is the sum of 2 and 2.
Person A: *Talks vaguely about 2 + 2. Fails to explain how 5 is equal to it.*
Person B: Not one? How sad. Look, like I've said from the start, try as you will you will never legitimately get 5 out of 2 + 2.
Person A: But you asked me to explain how to get 5 out of 2 + 2! Unfair!

That's no longer even frustrating. It's just funny.
New Limacon: Please don't make up scripts.
Soheran: Why, New Limacon?
New Limacon: It's annoying when you make up someone to argue with.
Soheran: What should I do instead?
New Limacon: Argue with the actual poster; it would make your point much
more effectively.
Soheran: That's a good point. It takes up space, too.
New Limacon: Yes, it does.
Soheran: Okay. I'm going to become a Mormon missionary.
New Limacon: Good idea. I think I'll be elected King of the World.
Soheran: Super!
Curtain closes, as New Limacon and Soheran silently dance.

no. they fucking don't. all an argument is is a set of statements called premises that are claimed to lead to another statement called a conclusion. when looking at an argument, the arguer is utterly irrelevant. arguments stand or fall on their own.

Only when arguments spring out of the ether. They don't. Ever.

Ever? Really?


I don't see you ever proving otherwise.

New Limacon: Argue with the actual poster

I've been arguing with the actual poster for post after post after post... he or she clearly isn't listening to me.

I thought it was worth noting, for the record, the absurdity of the whole thing.

I've been arguing with the actual poster for post after post after post... he or she clearly isn't listening to me.

I thought it was worth noting, for the record, the absurdity of the whole thing.

I know, I've seen your other posts. I have nothing against your argument, it makes sense, and I can imagine why your frustrated. I just find scripts annoying, and yours was the straw that broke the camels back.

I don't see you ever proving otherwise.

Haha... you want me to prove something (which, by the way, I have already done in this exact respect, repeatedly.)

You're a hypocrite. From now on, everything you say is clearly false.

Soheran: Okay. I'm going to become a Mormon missionary.

Only if I get to be seduced by hot gay party boys.

Only when arguments spring out of the ether.

nobody can be this dense - you're putting us on, aren't you?

Haha... you want me to prove something (which, by the way, I have already done in this exact respect, repeatedly.)


You used hypothetical and logical (to you) constructs. No factual proof.

You used hypothetical and logical (to you) constructs.

Yes. And you said "ever."

Of course, it's not even as if my examples were obscure cases that virtually never happen... people experiencing failures of will is a fairly routine occurrence. As you surely know.

Of course, it's not even as if my examples were obscure cases that virtually never happen... people experiencing failures of will is a fairly routine occurrence. As you surely know.

Provide factual proof of a purely rational and logical argument without loopholes for escape by one who fails the argument's will test and I'll admit I was wrong.

you know, i'm really sick of this angle - anybody wanna try arguing that peta is a terrorist organization again?

Provide factual proof of a purely rational and logical argument without loopholes by one who fails the argument's will test and I'll admit I was wrong.

I have made purely rational and logical arguments without loopholes without following through on them.

For a very simple example, I recognize that insofar as I seek my own pleasure, it is irrational to do things like seek short-term gratification at the expense of my long-term health and happiness... but I do so anyway.

But that is unnecessary, because you said "ever." For that to be justified, either you must have intimate knowledge of the mind of every hypocrite who has ever existed--knowledge more intimate than they themselves possessed--or you must explain how it is necessarily impossible for that to happen.

Since I've already given hypotheticals that illustrate it's at least conceivable, and since any argument to the contrary would be a pretty classic case of the ad hominem fallacy....

:rolleyes:

you know, i'm really sick of this angle - anybody wanna try arguing that peta is a terrorist organization again?
The ALF is a terrorist organization. PETA supports members of the ALF and has paid some of them to do certain jobs. PETA supports terrorism.

Don't say that the actions of the ALF aren't terroristic, they blow up medical research labs. They're no different from clinic bombers. Or are the nuts who snipe abortion doctors and firebomb their clinic's not terrorists?

For a very simple example, I recognize that insofar as I seek my own pleasure, it is irrational to do things like seek short-term gratification at the expense of my long-term health and happiness... but I do so anyway.

And was that so very hard to say?

Huzzah. You were right. I was wrong. Watch the drop.

And was that so very hard to say?

Um, you quoted the wrong person... I said that, not FS.

Huzzah. You were right. I was wrong.

Finally.

PETA supports terrorism.

not according to even the crazy government people that misused the word terrorism to apply it to the alf. why would they have missed this obvious fact?

Don't say that the actions of the ALF aren't terroristic, they blow up medical research labs. They're no different from clinic bombers. Or are the nuts who snipe abortion doctors and firebomb their clinic's not terrorists?

two things. 1)it certainly can't be the mere blowing up of things that causes one to be terroristic - otherwise you've declared civilian domestic demolition crews to be terrorists, not to mention all military organizations ever, as well as a whole bunch of people that have set the occasional fire from time to time. 2)there seems to be at least one distinct difference between anti-abortion terrorists and the alf - one engages in sabotage and the other kills people. this may or may not be enough to distinguish between terrorism and not terrorism, but it certainly seem to be worth mentioning.

not according to even the crazy government people that misused the word terrorism to apply it to the alf. why would they have missed this obvious fact?
Did I say that PETA was a terrorist organization or that they've supported terrorists financially? And would you please explain to me how blowing up a medical lab is not terrorism. I mean, a butchershop I could understand as sabotage, I'd still think it'd be wrong but you could at least make the argument with that. When you start targeting medical labs, to me that makes those that do it monsters.

Also, during the trial of Rodney Coronado for his firebombing of that University of Michigan medical lab, in the sentencing memorandum, the US attorney wrote that there was evidence that Ingrid Newkirk herself was connected to the crime.

Ask yourself this, if animals were liberated, would you hold them to the same legal responsibilities that we have for people? What if a wolf kills a pig? Would it be sent to animal prison? What if a cow didn't pay her taxes?

And it's not like PETA has the best track record for treating animals humanely. They killed at least 14,400 pets and wild animals at their Virginia HQ between 1998 and 2005. On June 15, 2005, Andrew Cook and Andria Hinkle were arrested in connection to 60-70 animal carcasses found in dumpsters during the preceeding 4 weeks. Police found 13 dead animals in their van and watched them dump 18 more into a dumpster behind a grocery store. All were wrapped in garbage bags. Also found was a tackle box full of poisons.

In December 2003, Ruth Brown worked with Rainbow Rescue in Roanoke Rapids, NC when she got an email from PETA requesting animals with the promise of finding them homes. They killed them. PETA killed them.

two things. 1)it certainly can't be the mere blowing up of things that causes one to be terroristic - otherwise you've declared civilian domestic demolition crews to be terrorists, not to mention all military organizations ever, as well as a whole bunch of people that have set the occasional fire from time to time.
Doing it for political purposes outside of wartime is one of the things that makes it terrorism. Doing it to ensure that dying people can't be saved is another biggy. Arson is a serious crime, it destroys homes and places of business, it destroys research, it destroys lives.

Violence and non-violence are not tactics, they are moral principals. The AlF seems to think the opposite so I just don't see any common ground on this with them. No one is opposed to treating animals ethically but ethical is not an absolute, and just like some animals, we think that some animals taste good. If you don't like what's on the menu then don't order, don't blow the kitchen up.

2)there seems to be at least one distinct difference between anti-abortion terrorists and the alf - one engages in sabotage and the other kills people. this may or may not be enough to distinguish between terrorism and not terrorism, but it certainly seem to be worth mentioning.
And depriving people of much needed medication for terminal illnesses (cures and treatments) isn't killing them. I mean it's like blowing up a vital new hospital while it's still under construction. Nothing wrong with that. No. Not a thing.

If you don't think depriving people of medicine is wrong then you've either never had to watch someone die in a hospice or you just don't care. Either way it makes you a pretty sick fuck.

It's the length that's a turnoff. It's why I tend to step out whenever Jocabia or Dem enter a debate.

That too. Also it's getting increasingly less contextual, if I wanted a logic lecture I'd wiki Logic. Personally I'm more interested in the topic at hand.

Did I say that PETA was a terrorist organization or that they've supported terrorists financially?

supporting terrorism in any real sense is a crime and peta's finances have been investigated by the us government. yet somehow peta has managed to remain a legal non-profit organization, and not had its assets seized and its leaders rounded up and held without charge, let alone gone to trial. why is this?

And would you please explain to me how blowing up a medical lab is not terrorism. I mean, a butchershop I could understand as sabotage, I'd still think it'd be wrong but you could at least make the argument with that. When you start targeting medical labs, to me that makes those that do it monsters.

what makes it terrorism? we've already established that it can't be the mere fact of arson. what distinction do you place between sabotage and terrorism?

Also, during the trial of Rodney Coronado for his firebombing of that University of Michigan medical lab, in the sentencing memorandum, the US attorney wrote that there was evidence that Ingrid Newkirk herself was connected to the crime.

though clearly not enough to charge her with anything...
but this is irrelevant to the point at hand anyways.

Ask yourself this, if animals were liberated, would you hold them to the same legal responsibilities that we have for people? What if a wolf kills a pig? Would it be sent to animal prison? What if a cow didn't pay her taxes?
....

now you're just being silly and irrelevant

Doing it for political purposes outside of wartime is one of the things that makes it terrorism. Doing it to ensure that dying people can't be saved is another biggy.

of course, it isn't done to ensure that dying people can't be saved. but, by all means, don't let anyone's actual arguments and justifications get in your way.

as for political purposes outside of wartime, does any political crime done outside of wartime become terrorism? conversely, is terrorism possible during wartime?

Arson is a serious crime

yeah, and? remember, this is about terrorism vs not-terrorism, not whether crimes have been committed.

Violence and non-violence are not tactics, they are moral principals. The AlF seems to think the opposite so I just don't see any common ground on this with them.

if this is the case, then it seems to me that essentially everyone on the planet holds the moral principle of 'violence'. total pacifism is the extreme minority position. this being the case, the fact that some group occasionally uses violent tactics, in keeping with the standard moral principle of 'violence is at least sometimes justified', seems to be neither here nor there.

and, of course, there seems to be legitimate questions even on this point, since the alf's 'violence' is of the metaphorical, property kind and is directed towards sabotaging those who are engaged in the not-metaphorical-at-all kind.

If you don't think depriving people of medicine is wrong then you've either never had to watch someone die in a hospice or you just don't care. Either way it makes you a pretty sick fuck.

ad hominem. now, demonstrate that even if it is wrong to engage in an action that has a secondary effect of depriving people of medicine, doing so is terrorism.