Communication. When a veal calf succesfully communicates that the lack of intellectual stimulation provided by its crate is creating a depressing sense of ennui and that the anxiety caused by its impending slaughter is causing a profound state of despair, I’ll think it’s immoral to eat veal.
What does this mean in the case of Russians, babies, and the retarded? I don’t really care, because I don’t eat Russians, babies, or the retarded. Eating animals (and the animal husbandry practices that allow me to eat them economically) don’t cause any moral conflicts for me. If you think I’m doing something immoral, then I’m gonna put the burden on you to convince me that what I’m doing is wrong. Finding your arguments unconvincing doesn’t obligate me to come up with a comprehensive moral system that incorporates animals.
Right, but does that mean you don’t care about Stalin’s purges, babies abandoned in dumpsters, or eugenics programs against the profoundly retarded?
You’re not obligated to come up with a moral system that incorporates animals, but if your moral system gives no guidance on how to relate to animals (whether as objects akin to rocks or entities akin to infants), it seems awfully insufficient to me.
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. When I say “I think eating veal is moral and the burden is on you to prove it isn’t” it obviously means “I’m a Stalinist eugenicist who thinks its OK to abandon babies in dumpsters.”
It’s a good thing my moral system does provide guidance on how to relate to animals; furthermore, it allows me to eat veal and still call myself a moral person. If you think eating veal is immoral, then you can present a convincing argument that it’s wrong. The Animal Rights activists are the people who are trying to effect legal and social change–the burden of proof is on you, not me.
For fuck’s sake, your sarcasm is pretty stupid. If your moral system means that you care about these things, why are you so unwilling to delineate why?
Because I’m evil. I’m going to go home, make an artificial vagina out of veal cutlets, and screw it while I run around the room squishing foie gras between my toes and singing about how much I hate babies, Russians, and the retarded.
OR, maybe it’s because I think that, if you want to effect legal and cultural changes in our society, like outlawing veal, the burden of proof is on you to prove that eating veal is immoral, not on me to prove that eating Russians is immoral. Ya know, the reason I gave in the part of my post that came after the sarcasm, which you ignored?
I guess I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you’re weren’t simply ejaculating all over the thread with pointless nonsense. I see now that I was wrong. If you don’t think killing stem cells or torturing veal calves is wrong, then you don’t really have a point here, do you?
Though your bizarre criteria of communication, which does seem to rule out Russians and babies out of moral consideration just as cleanly as animals, is not exactly impressing.
I never said that torturing veal calves wasn’t wrong, you disingenous little shit. Pull your tongue out of Ingrid Newkirk’s snatch for a moment, pick the hair out of your teeth, and actually read what I wrote. I’ve condoned eating veal, and current animal husbandry practices, which isn’t the same thing as condoning “torture”.
My bizarre criteria of communication? What exactly is that? I don’t think I’ve actually given a set of criteria about what constitutes communication in this thread. I’ve only implied that communication of complex feelings is necessary evidence of their existence. Is that what you’re getting at, or is it something else?
Really, it’s not that hard to explain why it’s OK to eat veal calves, but not OK to eat Russians and babies. But I’m not gonna do it, because I’m sick to death of the tactic of trying to divert the conversations with insane analogies. Argue your positions on their own fucking merits instead of snowballing with outrageous, emotionally-laden analogies.
Oh, I should probably address this little hijacking charge specifically.
My “point” in this thread is refuting your animal rights agenda; I think it’s pretty clear thats why you started this thread. So while I’m normally loathe to contribute to a trainwreck, I think in this case the animal rights tangent was the reason you started this thread. Rather then coming out and explicitly framing an AR debate, you instead tried to frame it as an “OMG OMG the conservatives are so irational!11!1!!!” thread. A pretty slimy tactic, but then slimy tactics are par for the course where AR nutters are concerned.
Now you’ve got some fire. But eating veal is condoning the torture of veal calves. You might not think their torture really amounts to anything, which I’m not really arguing against unless you also thought killing stem cells did.
I didn’t bring up Russians or babies or accuse you of trying to eat them. But if the communication of complex feelings is necessary evidence of the existence of complex feelings, then well-programmed computers certainly seem to be more worthy of moral consideration than human babies, which are ruled right out by your own “necessary” criteria. And that isn’t an insane analougy: it’s just your own incredibly slap-dash logic.
What does a human newborn do that an adult animal can’t that demonstrates the possesion of more complex feelings?
Dude, you don’t even fucking know what the word “necessary” means. Look up the definition of “necessary”. Read it. Look up the definition of “sufficient”. Compare and contrast. I said that communication of the feelings was necessary; NOT that it was sufficient.
No, it’s not. Torture can be either causing extreme physical pain, or extreme mental pain. I don’t think veal confinement causes extreme physical pain, and I don’t think cows are mentally complex enough to suffer extreme emotional pain from their confinement.
To elaborate on my last response, I think that communication of the feelings is necessary evidence that the feelings exist, but that it isn’t sufficient. In other words, you can’t conclude that computers experience complex emotions just because they can can appear to communicate them.
No, it’s not. People have much more complex minds and emotions then cows, and this enables them to experience suffering in ways that cows can’t suffer. It’s true that babies can’t communicate complex emotions but it’s also true that babies don’t have the same rights as adult humans, and I don’t have a problem with this. Do I think it should be legal for long-haired hippie freaks with the munchies to eat babies? No, but I don’t need for babies to have full-fledged adult rights in order to justify laws against baby eating.
There’s nothing slap-dash about it.
Russian adults can communicate complex emotions, so I have no fucking clue how they entered the picture.
This is very Scott_Plaid like; you haven’t exactly come right out and said “I won!” but it’s close enough, at least in spirit. Although, to Scott_Plain’s credit, he is a bit more intellectually honest then you are.
I don’t think you’re playing with a full deck either, but I sure as hell wouldn’t pull some peurile little “Screw you guys, I’m going home!” stunt.
You’re the one who hasn’t been making a coherent argument in this thread: You tried to start a “Look at me construct an AR platform from scratch” argument by posting your criteria way back in post 69. I disagreed with one of the criteria, and instead of defending it on its own merits you try and require me to come up with my own platform that conforms to your arbitrary restrictions (posts 72 and 79). Despite repeated requests for you to argue for your own platform instead of trying to turn the tables, you haven’t. Your arguments for animal rights aren’t strong enough to stand on their own, so you instead you try and turn it around and make others propose a moral system for you to pick apart.
Sorry, not going to play that game. You want the radical change? You justify the radical change by arguing for it on its own merits. Can’t do that? Then shut the fuck up, or at the very least learn how to exit a thread or disengage from a poster gracefully, without trying to get one last childlike slam in. You’ve done this exact same shit before, to myself, to Weirddave, and possibly others. It’s the behaviour of a total douchebag: You start to make an argument, refuse to support it, then call your opponent irrational and walk away. Whatever gets you off, I guess, but I don’t think you’ve managed to make a strong argument for animal rights in this thread.
I disagree with who’s being the douchebag here, who’s being irrational here; but I’m certainly not going to debate that with you, because you’re simply too unpleasant a person to talk with on this issue.
Good lord, dude. Apparently it wasn’t clear, and I apologize for being so unclear, but that was a rhetorical question. I know, of course, that you DO care about such things; I was hoping you’d elaborate on why, given that you’d just said that,
I assumed that you DO care about the case of all three groups, and that your previous statement was either inaccurate or misunderstood by me. Your decision to take what I said as some sort of revolting accusation was not at all what I’d intended. If I want to accuse you of being a Nazi, believe me, you’ll know.
Is that what turned you so suddenly hostile to me? If so, I sincerely apologize; I really did not intend to insult you there.
Because a rhetorical question can be insulting; e.g., if I we were discussing the rights of children and I was unsure about your position, I could ask it a couple different ways:
[ol]
[li]So do you think it’s OK to rape little boys?[/li][li]How would your system of moral rights address child sexual abuse?[/li][li]I don’t see how your system of moral rights would condemn child sexual abuse: How would it?[/li][/ol]
Would you agree that the first is insulting, the latter two more respectful?
Likewise, instead of asking me if I’m OK with Stalinist purges, you could ask me how it would apply to people who speak different languages; instead of asking me if I’m OK with babies being thrown into dumpsters you could have asked how it would apply to children. You don’t need to break out that kind of abrasive rhetorical question unless you really want to make that kind of point.
If you want me to elaborate on something, you can ask me to elaborate on something–you don’t need to ask a series of rhetorical questions and hope that I’ll elaborate on it.
