No, that's not how it works. This is a philosophy forum, not an agricultural one. You have yet to establish philosophically that an ethical position m...
Right, so where's your rebuttal to the very simple proposition I've stated three times now? Eating wild, entirely grass-fed, or kitchen-scrap fed meat...
I really don't understand what your project is here. It just comes across as someone labelling all the parts of a car down to the last bolt but refusi...
For me, the philosophical significance is in both the malleability of the conscious experience, and in the unreliability of our intuitive model of the...
Well, I am a layman when it comes to maths and have never yet failed to identify it, and I've been in a room full of philosophy professors who couldn'...
The point is that the reason why philosophy is a wider field is to do with significant, categorical (non-scalar) differences in its approach to concep...
I haven't said maths doesn't have a variety of commitments, some of which are "less well-travelled", in fact I said the opposite. The point I'm making...
You're mistaking the boundaries set within schools by the restriction of their premises with the boundaries set within entire disciplines on the "scho...
No one's "re-interpreting" the question more than any other. We're all interpreting it one way on our first pass, maybe seeing another interpretation ...
I'll ask again, what would define a valid reason? Everyone here has given you what they believe to be a reason. I can guarantee you that this forum is...
It's exactly the same as everyone else here. The question asks for the selection of an "answer" at random, there are three possible "answers" (25%, 50...
Yes, that's what I thought, but it sounded very much as if @"Jeremiah" was still looking for some other sort of refutation that I couldn't think of. I...
Really? Because it sounds remarkably like you want to defend your favourite kind of philosophy against charges of obfuscatory meaninglessness but rese...
Wrong in what? So far you have made the following two assertions - The question should be interpreted as having a sample space of four variables with ...
That seems to be precisely what happens according to some neuroscientists. Have you ever read anything by Ramachandran? He talks a lot about this. Wha...
What's interesting to me about the discussions here (the reason I enjoy reading them for the most part) is the fact there is an attempt to discuss top...
It's funny you should mention Kripkenstein, I've often used him (presumably a him?) as an example of the difference between the framing of a philosoph...
But in your previous comment you asserted that defining philosophy was itself an act of philosophy. If so, how could the absence of an agreed definiti...
The prejudice in your first presumption (that by arbitrary, I must mean arbitrary and pointless) is clouding your interpretation of what I'm saying. U...
I'm not sure I can agree with this. All inquiry certainly dissolves previous questions when a new path is chosen (very much the way maths is described...
To your first post - You've provided me with a lot of Philosophers who thought they'd made previous philosophical questions redundant. I'm unsurprised...
In amongst the usual obfuscatory dross of yet another post desperately trying to explain the arbitrariness of philosophy in a way that makes it sound ...
I really don't know what to say, you seem very passionate about the subject but more interested in finding fault with completely unrelated aspects of ...
Yet again, rather than addressing the actual philosophical proposition, you've focused on the one entirely unrelated part of my post you think you can...
Well it appears to be very much 'worth your time' as you keep responding. It's almost as if this one tiny thread is the only point you feel you can wi...
That shows that your calculations and one of the many studies Uber quoted do not agree. It says nothing whatsoever about which of the many varied conc...
I see the potential confusion, but what he's trying to get at is the final "way things are" so if the reality we experience is actually a construction...
Brilliant, "I could counter all your claims but I'm not going to", we used to argue like that at school. Show me where I claimed that you and Uber don...
I'm not actually sure how much a belief in Realism is required for the basic idea to pertain. Going back to Van Inwagen (where this concept originates...
No, because the 'measuring, is done by an actual person, so again becomes an entirely subjective activity leading to total relativism. Again, demonstr...
Again, we are in complete agreement. I'm a Realist, so I believe that there is a 'truth of the matter' external to our own feelings. If you want to be...
Alternatively, I could rephrase my concern this way. If I define 'good' philosophy as "any propositions written in a book filed under 'philosophy' in ...
Unless the" object analysis itself"(whatever that means) is a person, then how can 'acceptability' be drawn from it? In normal usage, 'acceptable' ref...
That's fine, but it's a long way from your original claim which was that no-one could eat meat and remain ethically consistent. Now we're talking just...
For literally the last time I am not claiming any figures work in anyone's favour, I am claiming that there exists a sufficient diversity of figures t...
Then I suggest you start another thread and stop confusing this one. This thread is entitled "Animal ethics - is it wrong to eat animals?", not "Globa...
So none of them then. Its not "some random standard I decided to come up with" it's how I actually live my life so I get pretty offended if someone st...
Really? Which one of them compares a chemical assisted vegan diet to a fully organic omnivorous diet which includes only wild, agroforesty, upland, or...
No, because you are a vegan. The "all other studies" are going to be studies trying to prove veganism, just like Davis's was trying to prove meat eati...
Yes, and I explained that the point is that far from being a cut and dried ethical issue, it is a complex issue requiring agreement on many technical ...
You're missing the point. 1. The Forestry commission already kill the 30,000 deer for the good of the forest, so my comparison is not with an already ...
I've literally just given you the scientific evidence. The UK forestry experts agree that deer need to be culled in order to allow natural regeneratio...
Well, for an exercise in clarity and precision, we're not off to a very good start, looking for a metaphorical 'door'. Perhaps to start with you could...
No, sorry didn't get any of that. I mean, I can tell all the words are English but I'm afraid I cannot derive any meaning from them when put together....
Comments