S

Yes. If your first plan of attack fails, call it incoherent and give up trying. I like your style.

My position must be what you say it is? No, that's not how it works, pal. I'm priority number one, irrespective of whether there were to arise a more ...

I would likely act as expected and try to avoid that from happening. It is not a logical consequence of what I've said that I would willingly submit t...

Okay, let's farm them too, then. I'm sure Kentucky Fried Human would be a real hit. But that's not my logic. I was only disputing your claimed equival...

Seeing different treatment as better or worse is loaded and potentially anthropomorphic. Oh, what a hellish life to be taken around on a lead and to e...

No. There's no human sufficiently like a chicken to justify equal treatment. You're either clearly wrong or have yet to reveal your own narrow interpr...

It's not about having or not having moral status. I haven't spoken in those terms. So you're asking me the wrong question. It's about the difference i...

No, actually, the distinction I made was on the basis of advanced intellectual capacity, rather than value, and I think that it might also seem wrong ...

Nice dodge. I'm not going to answer your question until you answer mine. You have a bullet to bite just as much as I do here, and I'm prepared to wait...

Are you really making an equivalence between the severely autistic or mentally disabled and chickens? Your counter-argument only works if you do. And ...

:grin:

It's relevant because it gives a reason for things being other than how you understand them to be. There are other motivations besides morality, and t...

Advanced intellectual capacity.

No, it means no such thing. Reflex does not indicate a will to live or avoid pain. You're reading that into it.

Because ethics isn't the be-all and end-all.

They both don't deserve to be in that cage, but it's fine to farm chickens, and it's not fine to farm humans. And no to your second question - that's ...

You don't recognise a will to live, you project it. And they have no rights, except those assigned to them.

No, and that doesn't follow from what I said. Besides, it could be argued that decent treatment can take the form of turning off life support. Your si...

No, that's not what you said to me. That might have been what you meant to suggest, but I wanted to be clear, which is why I asked you what your point...

So, they experience pain and suffering, but are not conscious of it to the level of an adult human being of sound mind, so they should be treated diff...

It's okay to turn off the life support of someone in a permanent vegetative state, so long as it's in accordance with the outcome of a decision made b...

But we were talking about factory farmed animals, like cows, chickens, and pigs, as you specifically requested. So, why are you changing the subject? ...

But they don't have the same level of consciousness with regards to pain and suffering, so why should one be empathic and compassionate to the same de...

It's on page one.

But my question was about consciousness. You cut that part out of your quote. Do you base your moral foundation on consciousness, like Sam Harris, or ...

Yes. I was waiting for that one. But what's your point? We don't factory farm humans. They wouldn't taste as good.

Okay, go ahead. They are not conscious to the same degree as humans, so how do you justify the suggestion that one should be just as empathic or compa...

In considering the well-being of conscious creatures, wouldn't the degree to which a creature is conscious be of importance? Certainly, other animals ...

Yes, it is. If more people saw it that way, then there'd be a better chance of getting the regulation required. The situation over there is to some de...

Although I'm sympathetic to positions critical of those governors in favour of "closing the door" on Syrian refugees, I find your quid pro quo reasoni...

Yeah, that sounds about right. :up:

This reminds of those old realism vs. anti-realism debates, except here it's like you've swapped sides and have borrowed the anti-realist shtick of sa...

This reply is about a month late, but whatever. Yes, it is. Thank you for reminding me. But unless you or someone else says something that I disagree ...

Yeah, nice work. :cheer: Too bad it doesn't mean much if you don't agree with how moral worth is being dictated.

Or rather, the only incentive for behaviour of moral worth is compassion.

1. There are only three kinds of moral behaviour: egoistic, malicious, and compassionate. 2. The only kind of moral behaviour which has moral worth se...

I think that Schopenhauer is wrong to rule out egoism in advance, by way of his conception of behaviour that has moral worth, and I think that him doi...

But, presumably, he also has an argument for his three fundamental incentives, intended to support his proof by exhaustion.

Yes, and the only reason my cat survived is because she's not Adam Sandler. Not being Adam Sandler is the one redeeming quality that everyone (besides...

How could anyone "take it easy" in a room with Adam Sandler? If I was in that room, and I had a loaded gun, I know what I'd do with it.

:grin:

Rich can't answer that question here, because he is a banned member. But I would answer in the negative and question why you would think that. Similar...

But that would mean I would have to start feeding her.

What is uncertainty? I'm not sure.

Her name is actually Oksa now. That's the intentional linguistic corruption by my brother of her original name, and I prefer it to the original. So, w...

So, for disjunct elimination, it should be like the following: 1. If moral behaviour cannot be based on egoism, then moral behaviour is based on empat...

Yeah, that vital "either P or R" premise is missing, for a start.

The wording of the argument would need to be altered to avoid circular reasoning. You couldn't have, "Moral behaviour cannot be based on egoism", as a...

The constant negative press covfefe. It can be a little distracting at times.

Nice to meet you, almost felt bad.