Gaspode, I hate to resort to a statement such as the following, but in this case I feel it necessary. Your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension astounds me. You state that I have not provided you with a “yardstick”, yet you fail to address the “yardstick” presented. You state that I have not proven that all life is equal, yet you fail to adequately disprove the proof I have offered asserting that it is equal. You state that humans are superior, yet you fail to adequately disprove the proof I have offered demonstrating otherwise. I strongly suggest that you thoroughly read my previous post and attempt to understand the content contained therein before continuing further.
Despite the fact that I feel my responses will be an exercise in futility, I will respond.
The “yardstick” I have provided is that of equality. See items 1-3 of the previous post.
Oh, and other species aren’t fighting for their survival. I see, it’s all so clear now. C’mon now, just because we can put our beliefs, misguided as they may be, on paper doesn’t make them more important. To believe it does so is chauvinistic. To believe it does so is ignorant.
No, we don’t permit them to be a part of our ecological base. They are necessarily a part of our ecological base. Were they not, e.g., not a part of our environment, our resources for sustaining ourselves, we would not have a sociocultural system.
I’ll grant you that. I drew an analogy between theft and damage which was inappropriate. You drew an analogy between animate an inanimate objects which was inappropriate.
No, you have not demonstrated that life is not equal. You have demonstrated that life forms are not equivalent. I do not disagree with that.
You and erislover are the one’s attempting to introduce the element of superiority, not I. I will maintain that life is equal until you demonstrate the flaw in my proof. I will concur that life forms are not equivalent. You have stated that it is okay to discriminate based on one set of properties but not another, namely, it is okay to discriminate based upon properties that distinguish the human species from other species. I can choose to discriminate based on gender or skin color if I so desire by your rationale and have the result be perfectly legitimate. That is why your reasoning is both false and arbitrary.
What “scientific principal of evolutionary reproductivity” are you referring to?
You are wrong and I will tell you why. The number three has a value, not by virtue of being a number, but by definition. The term life has a definition. They are both a symbol or series of symbols construed in such a fashion such that, when the symbol is understood, it is understood that the symbol represents a particular meaning. In the case of the number three it is defined such that it is a whole number greater than two and less than four… In the case of the term life it is defined such that it is the characteristic which is the simultaneous combination of the processes of metabolism, reproduction, et cetera. This is a simple matter of linguistics, mathematics and philosophy, all of which agree on the matter.
You are entirely correct and entirely wrong. With respect to the legal system, we have the ability to make ourselves superior. Whether or not such action is correct is the debate at hand; therefore, you cannot utilize that as an accepted premise. You must prove it first. It is a belief that some humans hold which has lead to a sense of importance in a legal sense. It is not necessarily a fact that humans are the most important species. I believe that I have proven otherwise, yet you have not addressed that proof.
Please read my previous post (items 1-3).
No, equivalence is not only applicable for the equation in which it was stated. Equivalence is universal. What one might place on either side of the equation might be incorrect or not truthfully equivalent, but equivalence is universal. Nonetheless, I did not state that humans and cats are equal by definition of the term lifeform. I specifically stated that they are not equal. The rest of the paragraph you posted is then moot.
I find it amusing that you once again choose to disregard the central premise and proof of my arguments. If something possesses the characteristic of life, it is alive. If something does not possess the characteristic of life, it is not alive. It is black and white. There are no degrees to being alive. There are no ten nickels or ten one hundred dollar bills. That is precisely why the fact that life is black and white supports the idea of equality rather than chauvinism.
Once again, you miss the point. I’m not arguing whether or not the law is preferential toward humans (although I could invoke the case which inspired this thread), I’m arguing whether or not it should be preferential toward humans. And what does evolution have to do with global preferential treatment of humans?
Pardon me, I don’t intend this to be offensive, but what in the hell are you thinking. You invoke legal precedence, which is moot by the reason which this thread was inspired, and then claim that legal precedence isn’t necessary. Which way is it? The basis for the derivation of this legal standard is precisely the issue at hand. Focus on it instead of dismissing it.
I didn’t invoke legal precedent. You did.
I’d like to see a logic which isn’t subjectively grounded. Subjective logic is invalid.
Naturally, I will. The first premise of your argument, “that basis must ultimately be the protection of the ideas and genes within that society,” is preferential. If it is preferential is is subjective. If it is subjective it is not logically valid. Why you ask? Something is logically valid if it holds true for all variables. If is subjective, it does not hold true for all variables. If it is objective, it does.
No, it’s not. I have said that lifeforms are all equivalent. I have said that the characteristic known as life has no variation. Life is by definition the capacity to metabolize, reproduce, et cetera. It’s either life or it’s not. If it is, it is equal to all other characteristics known as life by definition. The justification is Leibniz’s Law–the indiscernability of identicals. Disprove that one and I’ll reconsider. I have shown why I believe that all life (not lifeforms) are equivalent in my previous post. Reread it and ask question about it if you fail to comprehend the contents.
No, I didn’t fail to answer your question. I cannot give you a simple yes or no to your other questions because I feel that they don’t merit such an answer. Each and every being has the right to attempt to keep its life from being deprived from it. First of all, your example is simple for the reason that the girl has two kidneys. Refusing to donate one would not kill her, thus it would be selfish to assist the individual attempting to further his/her life. Both have the right to preserve themselves. It would seem that the preservation of both lives would be beneficial. Were the organ a heart or some other single organ, that would be another issue. Each person would still have the right to attempt to preserve their life. Good luck finding a doctor to perform the surgery.
No, the logic does not fly to pieces. You agree that L (a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub],a[sub]3[/sub]) = L (b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub],b[sub]3[/sub]), i.e, that life is equivalent. I did not assert that a body with characteristic L (a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub],a[sub]3[/sub]) is equal to a body with characteristic L (b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub],b[sub]3[/sub]). I specifically stated that two bodies are not identical. That is specifically why I utilized other definitive properties; moreover, I utilized those properties to demonstrate that the properties selected to determine preferential treatment are arbitrarily chosen insofar as the resultant elements to receive preferential treatment could be selected on a matter of species, gender, skin color, et cetera. To state that is wrong to take a life with a body of such and such properties is subjective and by that logic I could validly select any given set of properties by which to justify any killing. Please provide an objective basis for chauvinism.
It is an objective standard of humanity. It is subjective insofar as it is solely the those possessing the properties which make them human who are protected under law. In other words, it is an objective defintion of humanity, subjectively selected from standards involving other species; ergo, it is subjective.
I have thoroughly pointed out why these statement are absurd. You, yourself, have agreed that life is equal.
Nope, that’s not what I said. I said that *a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub], …, a[sub]n[/sub] are elements of A and that b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub], …, b[sub]n[/sub] are elements of B. The characteristic of life of all elements of A and B are equilvalent because life, L, is defined by something independent of A and B.
No, L is not a function of a[sub]n[/sub], it is a function of L[sub]n[/sub].
Nonetheless, it still takes shape and we still agree.
The purpose of introducing other properties was to distinguish between forms of life. That seems to be the precedence from which you elect chauvinism. It was, and is, my intent to demonstrate that utilizing other properties to appeal to preferentiality is subjective, and therefore, not logically valid whereas an appeal to the univeral is an objective method. Does that make sense?
Gaspode, I apologize for my opening response to your post. I am frustrated by the fact that you seem to fail to understand concepts that I am stating as succinctly as possible. I understand that you must feel similarly.
But that was accomplished by having different elements in A and B.
You are welcome to use a different analogy other than derivatives of functions; that was all I could think of off the top of my head which would account for equality even given different “answers.”
Nothing makes humans better, except for the fact that you asked a human.
Curse you Nen, I write this long asses reply without making any attempt at politeness, and then you go and do a classy thing like apologise. Well I’ve changed most of it, but if bits come across as being a bit abrupt I’ll apologise in advance.
You are attempting to argue that Homo sapiens is no more important than other species. ie we are equal to all other species. When asked to provide a yardstick for importance your reply is that the yardstick you have provided is that of equality. You are attempting to use an assumption of equality as proof of equality. This doesn’t wash in GD. I really hope for your sake that you can see the circularity of this line of reasoning Nen because I’m sure everyone else can.
Straw man. Did you see the big AND in there Nen? Humans are important because we make the rules and because we are fighting for survival. Other species are of course fighting for survival, but they aren’t making the rules as well. The fact that we can put our rules on paper in this discussion is not just important, it is crucial to the argument. The whole argument pertains to making laws, which are neither more nor less than rules on paper. Whether animal cruelty should be a felony or a misdemeanour hinges in its entirety on an assumption that the ability for humans to make rules is a right. If you wish to challenge this right then the discussion is necessarily moot for you since animal cruelty should be neither a felony nor a misdemeanour, but rather a personal choice. It is only if you accept that the ability to enact laws is important and a right then we can begin to discuss the level of severity of crime and punishment. To believe otherwise is not just ignorant, it’s completely illogical.
That’s a very sweeping statement. Cite please? Humans could quite conceivably live by strictly vegetarian means.
Then perhaps you could provide a quote and an explanation of how it was inappropriate. I drew an analogy between a piece of non-living property and a piece of living property that could only be considered inappropriate if we pre-suppose that pot-plants aren’t simply living property and are in fact part of our society. You can’t use such a pre-supposition to invalidate an argument I’m afraid. Assertion and strawmen don’t do much to further the discussion.
That’s a strawman in itself, or a red-herring. The argument at hand is whether cruelty to life-form A should be considered worse than cruelty to life-form B under law. The entire discussion hinges on an interchangeability of life-form and life, I can’t be cruel to a life, only a life-form. Having said that your attempted diversion changes little. You in fact conceded far more than just the inequality of life-forms. Form is strictly morphology, ie shape. But if you wish I can go and find cites that a human and a coral polyp do not by any stretch have equal metabolic rates patterns or processes, equal growth rates patterns or processes, equal reproductive rates, patterns or processes or even reactions to stimuli that are sensed, propagated or reacted to in the same way. I will genuinely provide cites for these facts if you wish, though I hope it won’t be necessary. On what grounds are you insisting that all life is equal biologically?
You have offered no proof beyond an assertion that it is so. Your quasi-mathematical proof is flawed, as I have pointed out, and I assume this is what you are referring to here.
No, as the race debates have rather conclusively demonstrated to everyone aside from AWC and Greinspace the result of discrimination on the basis of skin colour is definitely not legitimate. Anyone interested, yourself included, is urged to go and read those threads or go to this site to see reams of evidence that discrimination based on skin colour does not have a legitimate scientific result. I have absolutely no intention of starting another race debate here, but I will state right now that this argument is going to be completely disregarded as discredited tripe. Ditto for discrimination based on gender. The genes shared by males and females are no more diverse than the genes shared within the genders simply because they result from gamete fusion. Perhaps your argument would have some legitimacy if reproduction without one gender were widely practised, though even then it would be spurious because of the loss of some genes from the human gene pool. Killing animals will never result in the loss of genes from the human gene pool. Sorry Nen but this line of reasoning is nonsense.
The one that states that any individuals evolutionary success depends on the production of the maximum number of reproductive young. If the human species wishes to maximise its survival probability it should enact laws that maximise the survival rate of human beings. Pretty basic really.
And that is a straw man. Of course 3 has a value based on definition because that definition states "The cardinal number equal to 2 + 1. The third in a set or sequence. " The definition incorporates a value as part of the meaning I never said otherwise. The definition of life does not incorporate a value, only a definition of meaning and I never said other than that. Your quote above does not in any way demonstrate that a definition assigns a value, you’re simply presenting self-evident facts as though they support your assertions. they don’t. If the definition life assigns a value to life, then tell me, does life have a higher or lower value than RAM? Both have definitions so both must have values by your logic.
Nope. Our ability to make laws that affect other animals and other humans is a given in this debate. It is only the severity of the crime resulting from not observing those laws that is at issue, not whether it should be a crime. If we can’t make laws that affect other humans then the answer to the question must be ‘animal cruelty not only shouldn’t be a felony, it shouldn’t be a crime because we can’t make laws’. If you are attempting to argue that we can make laws that affect other human beings but not other animals, then by this very exclusion from the legal process the other species’ become either more or less than we, and as such your argument for equality is rendered meaningless.
I must be missing something here. You keep referring to this proof. Where is it. I have presented the more obvious flaws in all the proofs I have seen that weren’t already addressed by others.
Could you please make yourself a bit clearer. Your previous post was a quasi-mathematical proof whose glaring logical flaw I have already pointed out. There are no items to speak of. I’m confused. Simply stating that you’ve presented facts doesn’t make it so if the facts have been demonstrated to be assertions as I believe I have done in this case.
What a load of rubbish. x =y if we define x as 4 and y as 2[sup]2[/sup], yet if we define x as 163.15 the equivalence of x and y is clearly not true. This has nothing to do with what one places in the equation because the equation hasn’t changed. The equivalence is only true for the equation in which it was stated. This seems so glaringly obvious that I’m going to ask you to provide a cite to support your assertion that “equivalence is universal”.
And I find it amusing that you are trying to use baseless assertion as fact. Let me re-write your statement and see if we can make it clearer to both yourself and any other participants:
If something possesses the characteristic of currency, it is currency. If something does not possess the characteristic of currency, it is not currency. It is black and white.
See the silliness in this now. You are attempting a circular argument again. You say that all life is equivalent with no proof, and then attempt to justify the assertion by using the equivalence of all life. That just don’t cut it on these boards. Just look at this if you don’t understand: “There are no degrees to being alive. There are no ten or ten one hundred dollar bills. That is precisely why the fact that life is black and white supports the idea of equality rather than chauvinism.” This is a blatant circular argument. We know that we are talking about a human life and an animal life. That’s defined in the OP. Those are your units of currency. You can’t say that because you refuse to acknowledge an inequality between animal and human life that this proves an equality between human and animal life. It’s circular and every bit as nonsensical as my saying that I refuse to acknowledge any inequality between Biddelonian currency and American this proves Biddelonian and American Dollars are the same value, and you have to accept your tax cheque in Biddelonian dollars. If you want to assert that all life is equal or that all currency is equal you will have to prove that this is the case in order to progress your argument. I repeat, you can’t use an assumption of equivalence to prove equivalence.
Correct. But I have given a logical, scientific reason why the law should be preferential towards humans, I’m now waiting for your logical scientific reason why it should not be.
Because if you remove survival of the species what is your logical basis for any law concerning anything? The only logical reason I can present for any system other than total anarchy is species or at the least gene survival. Since you must accept a legal system to be engaging in this debate I would like to know what you are using as the ultimate arbiter of law?
Could you please quote me where I invoked legal precedent? I have made it quite clear to you that I have no interest in legal precedent, but rather legal standard and the derivative of those standards. This is a strawman of the worst kind and I would appreciate it if you either put up or shut up.
Yes, indeedy it is. Lets get my handy dandy dictionary.
sub·jec·tive (s b-j k t v) adj. Proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
As I stated quite clearly this logic proceeds from an evolutionary perspective. Are you really trying to say that evolution only takes place in the minds of people. If not what exactly are you calling subjective? How much clearer can I make it that this logic is not subjective than stating that it isn’t subjective and linking it to scientific fact?
pref·er·en·tial (pr f -r n sh l)adj.Of, relating to, or giving advantage or preference
What exactly are you going on about in this debate Nen? Of course a legal system with penalties is going to give advantage and preference. That’s what a legal system is. Law-abiding citizens are favoured over criminals. The idea that you can logically establish a legal system without preferential premises is so far beyond reality as to be laughable. Any law that seeks to penalise people for being cruel to animals is being preferential to non-cruel people. Your whole objection to my argument hinges on finding a legal system that doesn’t seek to give advantage to the innocent and law-abiding. As soon as we make cruelty a felony by your logic we are being subjective, and following your somewhat strange logic through we then have a situation whereby it is preferential and thus subjective. If it is subjective it is not logically valid. So by your own logic any law that attempts to punish anyone is illogical and invalid. If you believe that all laws are illogical and can’t be logically validated what the hell are you doing in a thread arguing against the logic of not punishing those cruel to animals.
Hell if we take this even further the concept that living things are more highly valued than non-living is preferential, and hence subjective and not logically valid. Taken to its ultimate extreme the concept that real things have more value than imagined things is preferential, and hence subjective and not logically valid. So by this argument Nen seems to be asserting that my imaginary friend George should logically be given the vote. This is so nonsensical that unless you can explain, Nen, why favouring humans is more preferential and hence illogical than favouring real entities over imagined ones I’m simply going to allow this argument to sink on its obvious merits.
Something must be logically valid if it holds true for all variables certainly, but just because something doesn’t hold true for all variables doesn’t mean it isn’t logically valid. If this weren’t the case then the Earth possessing a moon would not be logically valid. Time is a variable and for certain values of t the Earth did not have and will not have a moon. Logically therefore the Earth doesn’t have a moon. I think you’ve taken one too many logic classes Nen. Something can be logically valid even if it doesn’t hold true for all variables, so long as it holds true for the assumed conditions under which it is intended to be true. My statement holds true for the condition of the OP simply because the OP assumes that humans have the right to make laws.
Where to start on that. Your definition of life I will accept for this excercise. However you are committing the logical fallacy of assuming the obverse. All life must possess the characteristic x, therefore all objects that are alive must have those characteristics in the same proportion. Let me give you a couple of other examples. Fruit is defined as “The ripened ovary or ovaries of a seed-bearing plant”. It’s either fruit or it’s not. If it is, it is equal to all other characteristics known as fruit by definition. So when you said erislover was comparing apples and oranges you were logically incorrect, because all fruit is equal. Currency is defined as “Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange”. It’s either Currency or it’s not. If it is, it is equal to all other characteristics known as Currency by definition. So you will happily accepted ten pieces of any currency for your tax refund because all currency is equal. Want to take it to an extreme? A thing is defined as “an entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.” So since rat shit is a thing, and a house is a thing you will happily trade ratshit for your house because logically the two are equivalent. Furthermore for your argument to be logically valid they must be equivalent for all variables as you stated above. Crikey, I’ll imagine a giraffe and you will happily trade it for the life of your first-born since both are things and are equivalent for all variables. I think everyone including yourself can see the glaring illogicality of this assertion.
The reason why this is so silly is that you are asserting that two things are identical in value without demonstrating it to be so. Leibniz’s Law can’t be applied until it is demonstrated that the two are identical. Just because two things meet the same definition that doesn’t mean that they are identical in value because a definition does not pre-suppose a value, as I have stated time and again. I don’t have to disprove Leibniz’s Law. you have to demonstrate it can be validly applied since anyone can see that its application in this case is nonsense. Simply saying two things are identical does not make them so.
I don’t need to ask questions. I have demonstrated that your reasoning in your previous post is circular and based entirely on an unproven assertion of equivalence. You can believe things to be equivalent all you like but that doesn’t make them equivalent.
Nah, sorry that’s just out and out weaseling. My question quite clearly stated that the act would be performed “knowing that removing her kidneys will undoubtedly kill her” The reason for this could be the girl is haemophiliac, or has a weak heart, or is mortally allergic to the anaesthetic that must be used. Doesn’t matter, the conditions for the thought exercise were clearly stated and you weaseled out of it. I didn’t ask about who had a right to survive or attempt to survive, the question doesn’t need speculation on who will perform the op. The outcome is clear: death for the girl and life for the recipient. Saying the question has no merit is not a valid debating tactic, it’s a weaseling tactic. The question has merit simply because I require your answer to construct my argument and there you can present no valid reasons for demeriting it. Now can I get an answer: since both entities are of equal value, and survival is all the justification you need to kill your equals do you see any ethical dilemma in the situation posed?
No, I don’t agree and never gave you any reason to believe I agreed. You made an assertion to that effect and under the circumstances I allowed that that was valid. In any equation we are allowed to define values, which is what you did, that doesn’t mean that the givens are true.
Then what exactly are you attempting to define by the elements a1, b1 etc? You say that a1, b1 etc combined have the characteristics of life, yet are not functions of the body. This means they can’t be respiration, reproduction etc. Species are defined by their physical bodies, we don’t classify species based on their world view or political outlook. If the elements are functions of the body that houses them and completely limited by the conditions of that body, as all the criteria you listed for life are, then bodB, the body of species1, = B for any practical purpose. Therefore L(A)=L(B), which is what you stated, can be re-written as L(bodA)=L(bodB). Since you are stating that L (a1, a2,a3) = L (b1, b2,b3) then you are also stating that a body with characteristic L (a1, a2,a3) is equal to a body with characteristic L (b1, b2,b3). I think I can see why you’re so confused now. I believe you are assuming there is some logical way to separate a life from a physical body and that once the physical body is shorn away all life is identical. The trouble is that life is immutably tied to the body and any statement you make pertaining to the elements of a life must inherently pertain to the body that life is housed in. Because of this defining a body of characteristic L unique to that body. I can’t deprive someone else of your life and I can’t deprive a dog of a human life. L as a figure is unique to every individual body and as such it is invalid to state that L(A)=L(B). I repeat, your logic flies to pieces because you are using circular reasoning. You are asserting that L (a1, a2,a3) = L (b1, b2,b3) despite differences in the physical characteristics body, and then using this assertion to prove that differences in the physical body can be ignored. This is invalid.
And like I said above, restricting ourselves to living as opposed to non-living things is subjective insofar as it is solely those possessing the properties which make them living who are protected under law. In other words, it is an objective definition of what is alive, subjectively selected from standards involving other possible entities; ergo, it is subjective. By that logic my coffee table should get the vote. Restricting ourselves to real as opposed to imagined things is subjective insofar as it is solely those possessing the properties which make them real who are protected under law. In other words, it is an objective definition of what is real, subjectively selected from standards involving other possible entities; ergo, it is subjective. So logically my imaginary friend George should get a place on the UN Security Council. This is so patently bizarre I’m going to let it rest there.
Simply repeating ad nauseam that you have proven something doesn’t make it true. Your proof hinges on assertion and circular reasoning, nothing more. I have not agreed that life is equal. I have agreed to a definition of life and stated time and again that a definition does not give a value.
That’s more argument from assertion. You assert that life is independant of A or B, and then attempt to use this to demonstrate the equivalence of A and B. This is patent nonsense. The characteristics of life of all elements of A (lets say a kangaroo) include sexual reproduction and gestation in a pouch and aerobic respiration. The characteristics of life of all elements of B (lets say a yeast) include asexual reproduction by binary fission and anaerobic respiration. You are asserting that these characteristics are equivalent because they both meet the criteria for life despite the fact that they are clearly not equivalent. Your whole argument hinges on the massive assumption that a definition includes a value judgement making all things encompassed in that definition equal. I want a cite for this.
No it doesn’t. The reason being that the very properties you select can only be dependent on and stemming from the form of the organism. You can’t separate a kangaroo’s reproductive physiology from the form of a kangaroo. The supposed universals you selected aren’t universal. The factors defining life are only a universal because you pre-suppose them to be universal. You then go on to use this pre-supposition of universality to prove that anything based on those characteristics is equivalent. This is clear circular reasoning and is invalid.
Technically, that was accomplished by having different elememts. It would be possible for elements of A to be equal to elements of B. The introduction of other properties was to specifically state that elements of A were not equal to elements of B; moreover, it was to demonstrate that preferentialism based on those properties is chauvinistic.
Exactly! It’s subjective reasoning, not objective logic.
Gaspode, my response to your post is my next task, but being twenty screens long and having duties which will interrupt that task, it will take a little time. Fear not, more frustration is on the way.
Yeah, well, I’m not sure one could expect anything else from humans. Not like we could sit down with a chimp and talk this through.
You are asserting we should treat everything equally because everything is equal. I do not feel you have demonstrated why, if something so simple as $5 does not equal ¥5, then why something far more complicated like a gorilla equals a cat, or a mouse equals a human. That is, I do not feel you have shown why everything is equal. I believe that is becuse one cannot show this; all life is not equal.
Furthermore, you still note that even though we should treat animals equally, there are times when we can kill them for our own purposes. If we are all equal, why are your purposes (necessity) more important overall than my purposes (fun)?
Well now, let’s see what I can do to simplify this matter even further, shall we? I’m going to revert back to my previously posted proof (for clarity, it is not quasi-mathematical, it is simply a different formal language). Gaspode, I feel that I have thoroughly responded to all aspects of your post despite the lack of direct quotations. If you feel that this response inadequately addresses your post, I will respond again specifically addressing each line of your post.
There exists processes L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], L[sub]3[/sub],…, L[sub]n[/sub].
The simultaneous presence of processes L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], L[sub]3[/sub],…, L[sub]n[/sub] result in the in the characteristic L.
You agreed to #2 (and I assume #1, although it was not explicitly stated) in your post time stamped 08/16/01 09:51 PM. Let’s call these processes metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, reproduction, et cetera and the characteristic life.
There exists a species A with elements a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub], a[sub]3[/sub],…, a[sub]n[/sub] and species B with elements b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub], b[sub]3[/sub],…, b[sub]n[/sub].
You agreed to #3 in your post time stamped 08/16/01 09:51 PM. Let’s call species A homo sapiens and species B felis domesticus. Let’s call element a[sub]1[/sub] Human #1, element a[sub]2[/sub] Human #2, element b[sub]1[/sub] Cat #1 and element b[sub]2[/sub] Cat #2 for future use.
All elements of species A and species B have the characteristic L. L(A) = L(B)
You agreed to #4 in your post time stamped 08/16/01 09:51 PM. This means that you agree that L(a[sub]1[/sub]) = L(a[sub]2[/sub]) = L(b[sub]1[/sub]) = L(b[sub]2[/sub]) which means that characteristic of life is equivalent in Human #1, Human #2, Cat #1 and Cat #2. Life is life independent of the element in which the characteristic is present. This is the yardstick I offer. This is the only equality to which I refer. This you have accepted.
Species A and B are further defined by the presence or lack of properties p, q and r. A(p,q) does not equal B(q,r)
I’m going to assume that you will agree with #5 because I don’t see how you can’t. Here I have specifically stated that life forms are not biologically equivalent, e.g., they may possess different properties. Lets call property p appendages q eye color, and property r height.
In both species there are variations in the properties p, q and r such that property p may appear as p[sub]x[/sub], p[sub]y[/sub] or p[sub]z[/sub] and likewise for q and r, e.g, element a[sub]1[/sub] has the properties p[sub]x[/sub], q[sub]x[/sub] and r[sub]x[/sub] whereas element a[sub]2[/sub] has the properties p[sub]x[/sub], q[sub]x[/sub] and r[sub]y[/sub].
Let’s say that Human #1 has two arms, to legs and is bipedal, has blue eyes and is two meters tall. Let’s say that Human #1 has two arms, to legs and is bipedal, has blue eyes and is one meter tall. Let’s say that Cat #1 has four legs and is not bipedal, has yellow eyes and is 20 centimeters tall. Let’s say that Cat #2 has four legs and is not bipedal, has green eyes and is 20 centimeters tall. Naturally, we could list many properties with many variations.
It is a felony to deprive a body of characteristic L (given certain conditions) because it is characteristic L which is being deprived.
I assume you would not discriminate between Cat #1 and Cat #2 based on the variation of a property, namely eye color in this case. I also assume you would not discriminate between Human #1 and Human #2 based on the variation of a property, namely height in this case. I fail to see why one would not discriminate between Human #1 and Human #2 based on a property but would discriminate between Human #1 and Cat #1 based on a property. The fact is, if one is going to discriminate between two elements based on a property or set of properties the discrimination is subjective. One could state that the basis for discrimination is variation in properties p and q. Another could state that the basis for discrimination is variation in properties q and r. Because discrimination in this fashion is subjective, both parties would be equally justified, e.g., one could discriminate in such a fashion as to include only humans with green eyes or all mammals or any other set.
It is the subjective nature of this discrimination which makes an argument based on chauvinism logically invalid. One may state that it should be a felony to deprive a life only if the presence of that characteristic is in a human element. One could attempt to justify that statement by asserting that law is a human conception to serve humanity. That is not a valid argument because the premise is subjective. There was a time when it was not illegal to kill some humans because they were deemed to be slaves. Elements came to be slaves because of discrimination based on properties. What law subjectively is is irrelevant. What law objectively should be is the issue. To deprive an element of characteristic L based on the presence or lack of properties of that element is subjective and an argument supporting it cannot be logically invalid. To deprive an element of characteristic L because it is characteristic L which is being deprived is objective and an argument supporting can be logically valid.
No, I’m not. I’m asserting that all life is equal. By life I mean the characteristic present in some entities–not the entities themselves. I’m stating that we should treat the deprivation of life equally.
Again, I’m not stating that all entities are equal. A cat is not equivalent to a gorilla. A human is not equal to a mouse. Distinctions between properties of the elements exist. The characteristic present in each known as life is equal because no distinctions exist.
No, I’m not stating that we should treat animals equally. I’m not saying that corporations should be EOEs towards ferrets. I’m asserting that the deprivation of life should be treated equally regardless of the body from which life is being deprived.
Because by that logic, I could kill you for fun. Complete disregard for all life is uniform, albeit stupid. Complete disregard for life in certain entities is not.
Sorry, just copy-and-paste there, so the “sub” and “i” commands are lost.
I don’t think that the above result follows from (4) at all since you seem to shy away from L(X) being a function. Let me see if I can put a different spin on your argument without functions to keep your argument formal.
There exist processes L {L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], …, L[sub]n[/sub]} which are finite in quantity.
//These are the general processes of life.
The simultaneous presence of all L[sub]n[/sub] result in the quality L.
//If something has all the life processes, we call it “alive.”
There exist sets A, B, …, X which contain elements {a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub], …, a[sub]n[/sub]} and {b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub], …, b[sub]n[/sub]}, and so on.
//There exist species with specific means of action.
Here is where we split, I think.
4. If any subset of A form a one-to-one correspondence to L, then A is L.
//If a species actions correspond to all life processes, the species is alive.
Assume A and B are L.
If A is L, this means that there is a one-to-one correspondence between {a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub], …, a[sub]n[/sub]} and L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], …, L[sub]n[/sub]. Furthermore, if B is L, then we also have a one-to-one correspondence between {b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub], …, b[sub]n[/sub]} and L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], …, L[sub]n[/sub].
This means there is a one-to-one correspondence between at least a subset of A and a subset of B.
It should be forbidden to impose restrictions on any element of A, B, …, X such that if A, B, …, X was L without restrictions, then with restrictions A, B, …, X would no longer be L.
So, errr… where did 8 come from, apart from your opinion? I still don’t see any development of it whatsoever, sorry Nen.
I see no reason why an argument from a subjective premise in inherently invalid, especially since I see no way to form a moral argument without subjectivity.
Here we go again. I like Dr. Pepper. The existence of Dr. Pepper is good.
Because that entire statement is invisibly predicated by “to me” the entire argument is not based on logic? Huh?!
Oh, I agree completely. Now, as soon as we can decode the patterns of stars and see what the universe’s morality is we will finally have removed subjectivity from the relation. Except, of course, that each human will have subjectively perceived these elements. Shall Ii begin by gouging my eyes out and taking your “objective” word for it?
FALSE. If that were true then there can be no preference for anything. L=PAIN. I seek to deprive my life of L. That is an invalid argument? HOW?!?
No. To deprive an existent of L can be logically valid if we create an ordered preference based on individual elements of A, B, …, X.
I deprive myself of fish, not because it is fish, but because it doesn’t taste good.
I deprive house centipedes of life not becuase they are alive, but because of things that they do which bothers me. That is: I impose restrictions on some element of C such that C is no longer L because there is an element of C which does/ does not please me.
I don’t kill centipedes because they are alive, I perform an action on something that bothers me. The action I normally choose due to its ease is that of killing, but it is an element of the set of Centipede that I dislike, not the fact that it is alive.
I do not “act on L because it is L,” but I act on A because of {a[sub]n[/sub]} and the act happens to be to remove L. In some cases I, as H, act on some arbitrary A because of some h[sub]n[/sub], and not because of anything to do with the (arbitrarily chosen) A.
In fact, as a stronger version of the same thing:
[li]The cause of A, B, …, X acting on some A, B, …, X, including itself, is always found within itself. I justify my own actions internally. My moral valuations are internally formalized, and are entirely subjective. This is because there is no “universal set of morals” inscribed on the surface of the moon somewhere for me to reference instead of my own subjective analysis of some situation.[/li]
I would like to end this post by telling spiritus mundi, if he is out there, that I think I’m coming around on the whole moral relativism thing strongly.
Umm, sorry you’re going to have to provide quotes in future. We’re working in two separate time zones and by my machine I never made a post at that time. I found what you’re talking about though it took a long time.
Nen, I never agreed any such thing. In fact I disagreed violently. I couldn’t have disagreed more violently outside the Pit. What the hell made you think that when I responded to that line with “And here the logic flies to peices. You can’t use an assumption of equivalence to demonstrate equivalence” that I was agreeing with you. Lets be quite clear on this. I don’t agree with this. I have never agreed with this. It is illogical, it is argument fom assertion, it is a key part of your circular argument and is thus invalid. All elements of species A and species B do not have have the same value of characteristic L, or at least you have presented no reason to believe this. We accept that species A and species B have different elements. We accept that the simultaneous presence of various processes defines life. Neither of these points in any way justifies an assumption that L(A)=L(B). You haven’t drawn any logical conclusion here, simply made an assertion that L(A)=L(B). The glaring logical flaw here is that you have made the huge assumption that L[sub]1[/sub],[sub]2[/sub],[sub]3[/sub] for species A is equivalent to L[sub]1[/sub],[sub]2[/sub],[sub]3[/sub] for species B. Not only is this an invalid assumption, we actually know it not to be true and can prove such. To demonstrate:
Let L[sub]1[/sub] =metabolism,
Let L[sub]2[/sub]=growth
Let L[sub]3[/sub]=reaction to stimuli
Let L[sub]4[/sub]= reproduction
Now Let A= Blechnum filiariacea (A fern) and B = Macropus rufus (A kangaroo).
Now we know that both A and B possess quality L. However in its most simplistic forms.
L[sub]1[/sub] species A =Autotroph, exotherm
L[sub]1[/sub] species B =Heterotroph, endotherm
L[sub]2[/sub] species A =Indeterminate, cellulose based cell walls
L[sub]2[/sub] species B =Determinate, lipid based cell walls, calcerous skeleton
L[sub]3[/sub] species A =Limited gravitopism, limited phototropism, limited photoperiodism
L[sub]3[/sub] species B =Complex reactions to visible and IR wavelengths, touch, powerful chemoreceptor response, definitive pain response.
L[sub]4[/sub] species A =Alternation of genertaions, immotile spores for primary life form, requirement for free water.
L[sub]4[/sub] species B =No alternation of generation, no requirement for free water.
You should be able to see now that while we can all accept that L1, L2, L3,…, Ln result in the characteristic L, there is considerable evidence against the assertion that (L1, L2, L3,…, Ln (Species A)) = (L1, L2, L3,…, Ln (Species B)). Your whole argument that L(A) = L(B) is based on an assertion that is not only groundless, but patently not true.
Well, yes I would. See the problem is that you are assuming that the Set of properties p, q and r is independant of the Set L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], L[sub]3[/sub],…, L[sub]n[/sub] and that in turn p[sub]x[/sub], p[sub]y[/sub] or p[sub]z[/sub] are independant of L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], L[sub]3[/sub],…, L[sub]n[/sub] . This is an invalid assumption. The very characteristics that define species include the method of reproduction and metabolism, and quite often properties like skin and hair colour. They’re linked. I will happily discriminate against cats based on eye colour if you can show a significant overlap in the Set ‘trait_eye colour’ and the Set ‘trait-rabid’. Hell I discriminate against people on the basis of clothing if I know of a significant overlap in the Set ‘trait_gang colours’ and the Set ‘trait-bad ass mothers who’ll pop a cap in your ass as soon as look at you’. The only time such discrimination is invalid is if the sets are totally independant. It’s invalid to assume intelligence based on skin colour because there is no evidence that the Set ‘Skin colour’ intersects anywhere with the set ‘Low intelligence’ aside from the universal human set.
I would if you could demonstrate that the subset ‘short’ intersects to a significant degree with the sub-set ‘raving homicidal, axe-wielding maniac set to go off at any moment.’ Of course we know that the subset ‘human’ does intersect to a large degree with numerous other factors, including intelligence, genes etc.
Are you being serious? This is a strawman. No-one discriminates between cats and humans because they have different eye colours. If I put tinted contact lenses on a cat and a human they will still be recognisably human or cat and never confused by anyone. It’s because in the case of the human ‘eye-colour’ is only one subset within the set ‘human’. No matter what the eye colour she remains human. In the case of the cat the ‘eye colour’ is only a subset of ‘cat’. There is no intersection of the Sets ‘Cat’ and ‘Human’ except at the level of the set ‘Mammal’ to which both belong, and belonging to that set includes them by default in the set ‘possesing eyes’ which allows them to both be included within the subset ‘eye colour’. No one is discrimiating based on one trait but a set of traits. Imaginary people also have eye colours if we choose them to. Why would you not discriminate between Prince Charles and Cameron Diaz based on eye colour, but would discriminate between Lara Croft and Prince Charles based on a eye colour? The answer is of course that the question is a strawman. You discrimate between Lara Croft and Prince Charles on the basis of belonging to separate sets that may intersect at some point, not on the basis of the intersection.
No it’s not. That’s an assertion. According to the definition I posted above, for discrimination to be subjective it needs to ‘proceed from or take place in a person’s mind rather than the external world’. The reproductive tract of a kangaroo and the respiratory enzymes of a fern exist in the real world and the discrimination proceeds from this. Ergo the discrimination is objective. The only way that you could possibly argue that this is subjective is if you want to say that all discriminations proceed from the human mind. That’s true enough, but irrelevant to the OP which demands that we discriminate between lawful and unlawful behaviour.
You’re doing it again. you asserted that the discrimination is subjective, which it isn’t, and then say that because the assertion is true x,y,z. It’s arguing from assertion. Demonstrate how my discrimination between a potted fern and Muhammed Ali isn’t proceeding from the real world. Of course the basis for discrimination varies. That was erislover’s entire point. If we draw a hard and fast line at human the discrimination doesn’t vary because laws only apply to those entities possesing the complete set of characteristics p, q, r, s, t, u… and fall within very specific ranges. So long as p, q, r, s, t, u etc. are all real-world standards as opposed to imaginary ones the discrimination is objective.
Again, an argument from assertion. I have demonstrated the real world standards from which my discrimination proceeds. For the sake of simplicity lets say 26 pairs of chromosomes and a certain DNA pattern is the basis for our discrimination. I can measure those, weigh them , photograph them, even touch them. What part of this discrimination is subjective? No part. Because the discrimination is very highly objective in nature the argument is logically highly valid.
The only subjective part of that quote is the section that reads ‘law is a human conception to serve humanity’. That does of course proceed from the human mind, although of course the logical basis for it proceeds from scientific fact. The trouble with this Nen is that any law will by this argument be subjective and hence illogical. What basis of law isn’t subjective and hence illogical? You are actually arguing here that making animal cruelty a felony is more illogical than not doing so because while bith are subjective, nor making it a felony has its ultimate roots in objevtive science. Of course all this is a distraction because you are attempting to make a logical argument concerning the structure of law. If you concede that all law is illogical then your argument is invalid from the outset.
I shouldn’t really need to explain this, but I will. The reason why this was logically invalid because the description ‘slave’ was subjective. There is no basis in the real world for calling someone ‘slave’. The slaves didn’t have any different DNA or a greater number of chromosomes. Someone became a slave because of a thought and no more. It was the fact that the descrimination was not based on definable properties that made this logically invalid, not because it was based on properties.
So tell me Nen, if ‘what law objectively should be is the issue’, can you please explain to me what law should be, basing your conclusions only on things outside the human mind?
Firstly it is not subjective so long as the properties are real world properties, and not found solely in the human mind. For such deprivation to be subjectve it woyuld need to stem solely from the human mind, which it wouldn’t if the properties were found in the real world. Secondly this is an argument from assertion. Since your assertion that L(A)=L(B)=L is unproven and runs counter to the evidence this whole statement can be ignored simply because it is the deprivation of L(B) that is the crime, not the deprivation of L.
No it’s not. It’s illogical because it assumes an equality of the value of L for all elements. If we assume that L(A)>L(B) then depriving element B of L is less of a crime than depriving element A of L. If we assume that L(A) is infinitely less than L(B) the crime is infinitely less. We have at least some reason for assuming that L(A=/=L(B) because we know the factors comprising L(A) =/= the factors comprising L(B). Since there are more ways that differing input can lead to differing values than there are ways for differing inputs to lead to the same value, logic says that we should assume L(A) =/= L(B).
Now just to highlight the flaws in Nen’s argument I’m going to substitute the word ‘Existence’ for the word ‘Life’.
Existence = The fact or state of having actual being
Now according to Nen one existence is equivalent to one existence. A rat turd has “a state of having actual being”. Nen’s child has “a state of having actual being”. Equality is universal. This is a statement by Nen. I have simply removed the definition of life and replaced it with the definition of existence, and removed person and amoeba and replaced them with ‘rat turd’ and ’ child’ respectively. No strawman or paraphrasing. This is simply Nen’s argument taken to it slogical conclusion. If the argument is sound it must be able to be applied to all variables by Nen’s own admission.
OK, so if we allow that L= existence, we have.:
There exists processes L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], L[sub]3[/sub],…, L[sub]n[/sub].
The simultaneous presence of processes L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], L[sub]3[/sub],…, L[sub]n[/sub] result in the in the characteristic L.
Let’s call these processes fact of being and stae of being.
There exists an entity A with elements a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub], a[sub]3[/sub],…, a[sub]n[/sub] and entity B with elements b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub], b[sub]3[/sub],…, b[sub]n[/sub].
Let’s call entity A rat turd and entity B Nen’s child. Let’s call element *a[sub]1[/sub]*rat turd #1, element *a[sub]2[/sub]*rat turd #2, element b[sub]1[/sub] Nen’s first born child and element b[sub]2[/sub] Nen’s second born child for future use.
All elements of entiity A and entity B have the characteristic L. L(A) = L(B)
This means that you agree that L(a[sub]1[/sub]) = L(a[sub]2[/sub]) = L(b[sub]1[/sub]) = L(b[sub]2[/sub]) which means that characteristic of things are equivalent in rat turd #1, rat turd #2, Nen’s first born child and Nen’s second born child . Existence is existence independent of the element in which the characteristic is present. This is the yardstick I offer. This is the only equality to which I refer. This you have accepted.
Species A and B are further defined by the presence or lack of properties p, q and r. A(p,q) does not equal B(q,r)
Lets call property p appendages q eye color, and property ramounts of Yersinia spores.
In both species there are variations in the properties p, q and r such that property p may appear as p[sub]x[/sub], p[sub]y[/sub] or p[sub]z[/sub] and likewise for q and r, e.g, element a[sub]1[/sub] has the properties p[sub]x[/sub], q[sub]x[/sub] and r[sub]x[/sub] whereas element a[sub]2[/sub] has the properties p[sub]x[/sub], q[sub]x[/sub] and r[sub]y[/sub].
Let’s say that rat turd #1 has 300 mg/kg of yersinia spores and is two meters tall. Let’s say that rat turd #2 has 30 mg/kg of yersinia spores and is one meter tall. Let’s say that Nen’s first born child has 0 mg/kg of yersinia spores and is 20 centimeters tall. Let’s say that Nen’s second born child has .00006 mg/kg of yersinia spores and is 20 centimeters tall. Naturally, we could list many properties with many variations.
It is a felony to deprive a body of characteristic L (given certain conditions) because it is characteristic L which is being deprived.
I assume you would not discriminate between Nen’s first born child and Nen’s second born child based on the variation of a property, namely spore count in this case. I also assume you would not discriminate between rat turd #1 and rat turd #2 based on the variation of a property, namely height in this case. I fail to see why one would not discriminate between first born child and second born child based on a property but would discriminate between first born child and rat turd #1 based on a property. The fact is, if one is going to discriminate between two elements based on a property or set of properties the discrimination is subjective. One could state that the basis for discrimination is variation in properties p and q. Another could state that the basis for discrimination is variation in properties q and r. Because discrimination in this fashion is subjective, both parties would be equally justified, e.g., one could discriminate in such a fashion as to include only children with black plague or all entities or any other set.
It is the subjective nature of this discrimination which makes an argument based on chauvinism logically invalid. One may state that it should be a felony to deprive an existence only if the presence of that characteristic is in a human element. To deprive an element of characteristic L based on the presence or lack of properties of that element is subjective and an argument supporting it cannot be logically invalid. To deprive an element of characteristic L because it is characteristic L which is being deprived is objective and an argument supporting can be logically valid.
Therefore people, by this argument, which is the logical extension of Nen’s, Nen believes that incinerating a rat turd should logically be as serious as incinerating her own child. Hmm, I don’t think so somehow. Care to point out the flaws in my argument here Nen? After all existence is a property as much as life is. It’s certainly a felony to deprive someone of existence, and a rat turd has an existence as much as a child. All existence is equal because it meets the definition of existence. Or if you like we could run this through using freedom. It’s a felony under some circumstances to deprive someone of their freedom, yet we deprive gas of its freedom by putting it in bottles and balloons. Gas posseses the characteristic freedom a surely as people do. Should a child who blows up a balloon be charged with the felony of kidnap, and if not why. How about removing gold from the ground without informed consent. The ground possesed the characteristics of gold as surely as people do and removing gold from people is a felony. How about arson? Is arson a felony. Burning a persons property down is a crime, lets make it a crime to burn down an animals property. If we go beyond felonies it gets even sillier. It’s a crime to invade a persons privacy. An animal posseses privacy as surely as a person, lets make it a crime to walk in the woods.
I’m still waiting on an answer to my question too Nen. If all life is equal to you, and the only justification you need to deprive a carrot of its life is because it was necessary for your survival then do you see any ethical or moral dilemma in the following: A person with a fatal kidney disease, who is in desperate need of a transplant in order to survive, forcibly removing aginst her will the kidneys of a six year old child, knowing that removing her kidneys will undoubtedly kill her? If so what is the dilemma since the act can can be justified as necessary for survival?
With all due respect: Careful laws that make non-human-animal cruelty a felony will acknowledge that non-human animals have feelings and that human animals can easily observe that they do. We (speaking as a U.S. citizen) should, through the law, acknowledge our pathologies regarding our treatment of non-human animals. But I’d hate to be the guy who has to write the law! Won’t we have to restrict the protection of the law to mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians … and what else? Maybe vertebrates in general? Jeez. But it’s nice to know (through this forum) that there are so many people who theoretically support such a law. It’s always hard to draw a new line in the sand.
The argument isn’t valid, or at least won’t be widely accepted, if the premises are accepted. In this case, I don’t accept the premise because it is a matter of opinion–an opinion I don’t share.
Well, I like Dr. Pepper too, but it’s still an opinion.
Yep. It’s an opinion. It is not objective.
Well, that’s silly. Naturally there is always the subjective element of human perception, but there is a difference between grounding reason in opinion and what is believed to be fact.
I said:
To which you replied:
You are misunderstanding my point. I’m not saying whether or not the deprivation of a characteristic is desirable or not. I’m saying that grounding a decision on whether or not said deprivation is right based upon other properties of the element is prejudicial.
But an ordered preference is prejudicial!
I’m not saying that you’re killing it because it’s alive. I’m saying that if one asserts that it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill because it is life which is being deprived. To do so should then be wrong for all elements.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
In fact, as a stronger version of the same thing:
[li]The cause of A, B, …, X acting on some A, B, …, X, including itself, is always found within itself. I justify my own actions internally. My moral valuations are internally formalized, and are entirely subjective. This is because there is no “universal set of morals” inscribed on the surface of the moon somewhere for me to reference instead of my own subjective analysis of some situation.[/li][/quote]
Of course! There is not objective morality. Any argument dictating that killing is wrong is subjective. Given that one believes killing is wrong, one either has the choice to justify what it is wrong to kill objectively or subjectively.
With or without restrictions. Ok, you wanted it in a formal language, so I tried to keep it there. It should be rephrased:
“It should be a felony to act on a live existent in such a way that would cause its death, such that if the live existent would not die before the action it would surely die as a consequence of it.”
I don’t see that that is a conclusion to come to after all the meandering about equality, is all. You have a big, detailed train of thought to follow, and then BAM all of a sudden present your opinion in again.
On just what “4” said
Then you say
And I disagree that is what that means. I think gaspode spelled out clearly enough, however, that individual characteristics of life are not transitive, and that the above relationship is not inherent in or derived from (4).
Well, it’s time to point out the futility of arguing with someone such as yourself.
Well, you have my apologies. I should have considered that possibility.
I said:
To which you replied:
Poppycock! You did agree.
Make up your mind. It is impossible to have a debate when you change your mind about your acceptance of the premises. I continued my argument based on your acceptance of this premise. That’s how argument are successfully made. Given the acceptance of premises, draw conclusion which follow logically. Figure out how you stand on this one and then I’ll deal with the rest of your attack on the proof.
And by your logic, since we metabolize at different rates, the “value” of my life and “value” of your life dictates that is could be acceptable to wantonly kill one of us.
No, that’s an argument from assertion, and a prejudical assertion at that. My assertion was a possible objective grounding.
Yup, characteristics define species. A cat has such and such metabolism. A human has such and such metabolism. They have the same reproductive processes aside from gestation period. You seem to like this argument from evolution. Here’s a twist for you. Species evolve. We’ve got one species called homo sapiens. It’s moving toward a species called homo super sapiens. There are elements of homo sapiens which are very similar to the future species homo super sapiens. There are also elements of homo sapiens which are similar to their predecessors, homo sub sapiens. Let’s be prejudicial toward some elements within the species because of minor variations.
No, they don’t. They utilize a set of properties to discrimate, the choice of which is specifically designed to include humans and exclude everything else. It is chauvinistic.
Yet another inappropriate analogy. Lara Croft is not alive.
My eye color and your eye color differ. That difference exists in the real world. I will discriminate against you. Pfft.
Demonstrate the logical basis.
Horsefeathers. If you’re going to make it wrong to kill wantonly, you can at least ground it obejectively.
People became slaves because the had such and such skin color or were a part of such and such a culture or such and such whatever. They were thought to be less than equal based on the property of skin color, response to stimuli, etc. You’re doing the same.
Yup. Natural law. Anarchy.
Same goes for justifying discriminating between humans, bub.
As to your entire “rat turd” argument, it is ludicrous. You can’t deprive life from a rat turd. I attempt to offer objective application for a law, and you offer “rat turd”. You have not only demonstrated a lack of comprehension on the matter, but an inability to form a valid argument.
