LongLiveYorke 38 Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Surely when we kill animals for food we should do it in a way that minimizes their suffering. We don't have to worry about corn in the same way.Er, wait, my argument was that "can feel pain == can't kill" implies "vegetarian," not that "can feel pain" implies "okay to give pain and murder". It was a rebuttal against the "feel pain" argument. In reality, I think that argument is moot to begin with.For the record, I too think that we should minimize pain...? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Er, wait, my argument was that "can feel pain == can't kill" implies "vegetarian," not that "can feel pain" implies "okay to give pain and murder". It was a rebuttal against the "feel pain" argument. In reality, I think that argument is moot to begin with.OK, but you're committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent.The real starting point is:If no pain => ok to killpain => not ok to kill does not logically follow from this. I don't think it's moot. Organisms that can suffer deserve more protection than those that don't. That is not the same as saying we should never kill anything that feels pain. Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 man, I'm still confused. I thought you both liked killing babies? why are you arguing? Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 OK, but you're committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent. I haven't come close to doing that. My showing that one thing doesn't imply another doesn't imply that I'm trying to negate the other. You're the one committing a fallacy. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I love scientist fighting:"I know you did but what did I?" Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I haven't come close to doing that.I'm pretty sure that you did, so maybe I need to explain better. so if you didn't feel pain would it be ok for me to punch you? pretty much!So my position here can be formalized as:IF (organism does not experience pain) THEN (it's ok to harm)Let's abstract this as IF X THEN YYou come along and say:So, if "being able to feel pain" is the litmus test, I'm assuming you're all vegetarian, right?The implication here is that my position leads toSINCE (organism experiences pain) THEN (it's not ok to harm)orNOT X, THEREFORE NOT YDenying the antecedent is precisely this, when you start with the premiseIF A THEN Band then conclude NOT A, THEREFORE NOT B. Link to post Share on other sites
JubilantLankyLad 1,957 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Ipso facto, vis a vis the quid pro quo, e pluribus unum! Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 6, 2012 Author Share Posted June 6, 2012 vb makes me feel borderline retarded. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 So my position here can be formalized as:IF (organism does not experience pain) THEN (it's ok to harm)But this isn't a good position anyway, right?I mean, even if you can't feel the pain, there might be some other consequences to getting punched in the face.Shake, science experiment time. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 6, 2012 Author Share Posted June 6, 2012 But this isn't a good position anyway, right?I want to be clear that I agree that vb's original position has holes in it, but his general knowledge/logic is what I find impressive. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I don't know what I'm more jealous of - VB's really smartness, or DJ Vu's awesome reading/interpretation ability. You both make me feel lazy and stupid. Which I am, but there's no need to jam it in my face. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 vb makes me feel borderline retarded.I try!But this isn't a good position anyway, right?I mean, even if you can't feel the pain, there might be some other consequences to getting punched in the face.Yeah, it's way oversimplified. For one thing, "pain" should be more generally "suffering". To delve into your example a bit, there might be some other consequences to getting punched in the face, but who is to be concerned about them? In other words, you are implying that the owner of the face is going to suffer in some other way besides the pain. But if he is really incapable of suffering? Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 To delve into your example a bit, there might be some other consequences to getting punched in the face, but who is to be concerned about them? In other words, you are implying that the owner of the face is going to suffer in some other way besides the pain. But if he is really incapable of suffering?In that case, punch away. But that's because he will continue on afterwards as if it never happened. We can't say the same thing when we're talking about death in place of punches. Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 so if I follow correctly, then am I to believe that vb regularly punches unborn babies in the face? because that appears to be what I'm reading. phlegm? colonel feathers? can I get a second opinion here? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 As smart as he is, its kind of weird how often he is wrong about stuff... Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 In that case, punch away. But that's because he will continue on afterwards as if it never happened. We can't say the same thing when we're talking about death in place of punches.Sure you can, that's why you don't mind killing lima beans, even though they don't continue on afterwards as if it never happened. It's hard to imagine with a person example, since they do suffer, and even if we try to imagine our way into an example where they don't, well maybe people who know them somehow suffer when we kill them. But ultimately it comes down to someone's suffering. I don't think you'll be able to find an example of something that is morally wrong that doesn't somehow involve the well-being of conscious, suffering-capable organisms. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Enough blah blah blah.Its a day to celebrate the failure of Prop 29 in California, a tax on tobacco that would have seriously hurt my cigar smoking lifestyle!!!!!USA USA USA Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Sure you can, that's why you don't mind killing lima beans, even though they don't continue on afterwards as if it never happened.It's hard to imagine with a person example, since they do suffer, and even if we try to imagine our way into an example where they don't, well maybe people who know them somehow suffer when we kill them. But ultimately it comes down to someone's suffering. I don't think you'll be able to find an example of something that is morally wrong that doesn't somehow involve the well-being of conscious, suffering-capable organisms.I'm pretty good at imagining scenarios that could only be the result of magical genies.Regarding your last point: abortion.Bam. Circle gets the square.I actively avoid reading anything about young children being killed. The thing that really pains me isn't limited to the suffering they endure. Some of it is the innocence of the victim. And some of it is all the stuff in life that they'll never get to experience. Is it enough to say that someone won't suffer? Is there a happiness opportunity cost that we should factor in? Maybe you're right that abortion makes me uncomfortable because I can't really separate "death" from suffering. But it does make me sad either way and I can't seem to separate the life that is to come for a fetus with its current unconscious state. Link to post Share on other sites
JubilantLankyLad 1,957 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Is it enough to say that someone won't suffer? Is there a happiness opportunity cost that we should factor in?You're just arguing semantics with this one. Sorry vb. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Is it enough to say that someone won't suffer? Is there a happiness opportunity cost that we should factor in?I'm fine with that, but that still falls within the purview of a concern about the well-being of conscious, suffering-capable organisms. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 CABLE NEWS RACETUES. NITE, JUNE 05 2012FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,108,000FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,973,000FOXNEWS GRETA 2,802,000FOXNEWS BAIER 2,441,000FOXNEWS SHEP 2,147,000FOXNEWS FIVE 1,590,000CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,516,000MSNBC MADDOW 1,256,000CMDY COLBERT 1,226,000MSNBC SCHULTZ 1,119,000MSNBC HARDBALL 790,000MSNBC SHARPTON 771,000CNN COOPER 630,000CNN MORGAN 591,000 How long until The Daily Show is in the top 3? 2 years? Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 IF X THEN YNOT X, THEREFORE NOT Y I don't want to get TOO much into this, but I would argue that I'm doing the following.Others argued "If X then Y", or "X implies Y"I'm saying, "If (X implies Y), then Z". That was what I said out loud. The implication was that I was also saying "Not Z, therefor not (X implies Y)".X = Entity can fell painY = Cannot Harm entityZ = Cannot kill and eat animals Link to post Share on other sites
JubilantLankyLad 1,957 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 All I know is, bacon is delicious. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 CABLE NEWS RACETUES. NITE, JUNE 05 2012FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,108,000FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,973,000FOXNEWS GRETA 2,802,000FOXNEWS BAIER 2,441,000FOXNEWS SHEP 2,147,000FOXNEWS FIVE 1,590,000CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,516,000MSNBC MADDOW 1,256,000CMDY COLBERT 1,226,000MSNBC SCHULTZ 1,119,000MSNBC HARDBALL 790,000MSNBC SHARPTON 771,000CNN COOPER 630,000CNN MORGAN 591,000 How long until The Daily Show is in the top 3? 2 years?Why don't they list American Idol as well?Neither one is an actual news show. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 All I know is, bacon is delicious.Went to dinner last night with some people and one of the guys was telling me about a restaurant in a nearby city called the Salted PigHe had them invent a desert with bacon and ice creamHe had a picture of it.It looked awesome Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now