But we’re not interested in perception.We’re interested in facts. The perception of the existence of the IPU is based on moral perception, personal opinion, and perception of actual events. That does not justify a statement that “All people who reject the torture of animals do so because the IPU made them do it.” Such a staemnt is groundless and illogical.
ANd it is logical to call a frog a unicorn if itstand up to our understanding of a unicorn. Problem is that while that while holding such logic likely makes us lunatics it does not make a frog a unicorn. Their is one definition of hypocrisy in use and it is not open to any other understanding.
How many legs does a dog have if we understand the tail is a leg?
It is a huge stretch of the definition. The definition is dependent solely on professing feeelings we don’t have, not professing feelings that aren’t consistent with behaviour.
And then you need to demonstrate that “If you were really compassionate you wouldn’t kill”.
To do that you would need to either:
Read minds and demonstarte that no compassionate person has ever killed. But you’ve already conceded we can;t do that so that’s out.
or
2)Demonstrate, or at least contend, that one cannot override any other emotions when one ‘really’ felt them. But you can’t do that logically either.
Your argument runs in ever-broadening circles.
That, IMHO, is rubbish. A truly stought intelligence settles for reasonable proof and preponderance of evidence. A stout intelligence wouldn’t accept the existence of unicorns in his basement because he hasn’t been their for five minutes and one might have snuck in. That’s the mark of a gullible mind, not a stought intelligent. These boards (and in fact rational humans) work on an acceptance of a reasonable level of supporting argument to banish ignorance. If you didn’t accept this you would know that there is no means of fighting ignorance and your presence here is nothing more than trolling.
You’re being deliberately obtuse I fear.
And in no way does anyones perception of an event affect the truth of the event. Many percieve the Earth as flat, the moon landing as a hoax, the IPU as real and Jailie Salassie as God. That does not mean taht any of those events are true, nor does stating that they are true go any way towards fighting ignorance.
No, we’ve already established that it is possible to be inconsistent yet honest in ones stated emotions and beliefs. Your running with a circular argument again. You claim someone is not feeling as they state. You attempt to demonstrate this by proving inconsistency of feeling and action. We demonstrate that it is possible to be inconsistent yet honest in ones stated emotions and beliefs. You then state that you can reasonably doubt the persons veracity beacuse they are inconsistent.
This is not logical. There is no reason to demand any consistency in the first place if we don’t pre-suppose hypocrisy.
Wrong. Either they do or do not feel as stated. Motivations for actions are irrelevant.
But interpretations don’t affect facts. Only outcomes.
Agreed. But if someone making a blanket statement such as “all meatatarians who oppose torturing animals are hypocrites” does not further the fight against ignorance unless supported by logic or facts. Sven made such a statement and I would like to see either the logic or facts upon which it is based. It doesn’t have to be based on the logic of any particular moral system. Just logic as opposed to emotion and gut-feeling.
Fine. To save time I’ll re-submit that as “the point of your argument must be to demonstrate why you can use an emotion/over-ride situation as evidence of hypocrisy in the case of compassion when we have proved that it is not so for at least some other human emotions, and no-one has produced any evidence that it is in fact so in any other instance whatsoever.”
The trouble is we’re not discussing assesments. We’re discussing the blanket assertion that “Any meat eating human who opposes the flaying alive of cattle is a hypocrite” That’s not an assesment, it’s a statement of fact and statements of fact in GD need to be backed up with logical argument or facts. If they can’t be then they may be casully disregarded and labelled as baseless, illogical and irrelevant.
Apparently you have a device that I do not. I still have to perceive my facts. Where do you get yours from?
Rather, you are using one definition of hypocracy and aren’t open to any other understanding. Consider the definition again:
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
Firstly, we cannot know that when gaspode says, “I feel compassion for animals” that he really means it. this doesn’t mean he is lying, of course, just that even though we have no reason to doubt him we certainly also have no way of verifying it. He then goes over and kills a cow. “My,” we tell ourselves, “the premature ending of another’s life is most certainly, in this case, not a compassionate act. What is that fellow gaspode up to??”
We have (at least) two different outcomes. One, you are a hypocrite. For whatever reason, you lied about being compassionate, or changed your mind about being compasionate. Though you said you were compassionate, we certainly saw you act against compassion.
[I say the earth is flat, **gaspode** (to use one of your examples), and yet you saw that it was round. Who are you going to believe?]
As well, the other outcome could be different. “My, the premature ending of an animals’s life is most certainly, in this case, not an act of compassion. Something much stronger must be guiding his hand…” and we would wonder about that deep fellow gaspode who butchers animals but still feels compassion; “Time will harden that man…”
Well, let us resolve that a person isn’t going to call themselves a hypocrite; that is, the word came in to the language to be used by one against another. We gather that a person is a hypocrite (since we cannot read his mind) by judging professed feelings against directed action. If those two are at odds, it is not unreasonable to assume that the professed feelings were wrong, depending on the person’s understanding of whatever feeling was professed.
Logically schmogically. There’s nothign to demonstrate. We’ve already agreed that killing, as an act, is not founded in compassion, and that it, in fact, goes against it. What you’re missing is that, to the person who calls you a hypocrite, it doesn’t matter if you really were compassionate or not. You disregarded that feeling. You acted, not from that fdeeling, but against it. You, logically, felt two things that were contradictory to each other. While we may then go in circles about whether a person can hold contradictory opinions without being a hypocrite, if we want to stick to your strictly logical system compassion, at the moment of killing, is not present.
Like an animal corpse indicating a keen lack of compassion?
You’ve got a truth sensor too?? Does it look like the fact sensor?
Er, we’ve established that it is possible to be inconsistent yet honest in one’s stated emotions and beliefs presupposing certain values.
Of course, should a person not suppose those values then they might draw an entirely different conclusion from the same facts.
[quote]
There is no reason to demand any consistency in the first place if we don’t pre-suppose hypocrisy.[/wuote]
We don’t need to presuppose hypocricy. Hypocricy, given God’s eyes, is the inconsistency between what a person says and what a person feels. Given man’s eyes, the definition is dependent on our ability to assess what a person feels; when we see that a person act in a way that is not consistent with what he feels, that lends credence to the possibility…blah blah blah.
Well, I suppose if you hold the idea that feelings don’t guide motivations for actions. I would be interested in knowing what does motivate behavior, then.
Well, if we all had our patented fact and truth finders there wouldn’t be any problem, I agree.
To reiterate:
[li]Killing is not an act of compassion[/li][li]the act of proclaiming compassion and the act of killing come from two seperate motivations.[/li][li]We find it is not unreasonable to assume that actions are a better guide to understanding a person’s feelings than their own words–which may be untrue and are not verifyable.[/li][li]If we find that a preson’s actions run counter to a person’s professed feelings we find that the actions are certainly true, so the feelings must be false.[/li]
Oh, what, that’s illogical? Illogical or it doesn’t follow with assumptions you make about things?
Your feelings are an unknown. Your actions can be confirmed. It doesn’t really matter what feelings you say you had; you acted in a non compassionate manner. Only when you say you are compassionate do we find you to be a hypocrite.
then you’ve set out an impossible task. Since we are making value-judgements about people the logic can only come from within moral systems or presumed moral systems.
Allow me to make this aboslutely clear as possible through the use of bold, all caps, and italics. IT IS A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE TO FIND WHETHER AN EMOTION HAS BEEN OVERRIDDEN OR COMPLETELY NOT PRESENT. This is because it is a matter of perspective what one means by having a particular emotion, and what emotions, in our own value system, can override it at all.
I hope I have shown why it is not a fact in the same way that the earth is round is a fact, though there are similarities even there.
I’m going to try to get a word in edgewise. I’ll confess to not having read every post, particularly after about 4 rounds of the one-on-one bout, but early on I saw some points I wanted to make.
Just in case it needs to be said, these are all deadly (NPI) serious.
First, why is it OK to kill plants and not animals? I mean, if animals have rights, why not plants? They are certainly alive. I believe the answer will generally have some bearing on why many of us are ok with killing animals, but don’t want to see them suffer unnecessarily.
Secondly, why do animal rights restrict humans (some at least) but not other animals? Is it wrong for a human to kill a seal but not wrong for a polar bear? How is the result any different for the seal? If it’s equally wrong, are we not duty bound to save the seals? But that would doom the bears… It should be pointed out at time that there are many, MANY animals on this planet that absolutely require meat in their diet. Cats and snakes, for two entire families. Humans don’t, but if we DID, would it no longer be wrong for us to kill?
Third, the whole concept that animals are inferior to, and subject to the dominion of, humans, is another of those bonehead ideas we can thank religion for. Stick your naked butt out on the Serengeti, and see how much respect the local fauna has for your superiority. The idea that they’re our dominion is behind the idea that we can engage in wholesale habitat destruction, and generally tear up the environment at our whim, and everything will be just peachy.
I have no qualms about eating meat. I don’t want to see the animals suffer any more than necessary to get them killed, but that’s just my own anthropomorphic baggage - I doubt lions feel any such things, and I’m damned sure spiders don’t. However, I do recognize that while killing and eating meat from time to time is natural for humans, and many other nominally herbivorous critters such as deer, it’s no reason to assume that the entire planet is our sandbox to plunder indiscriminately without regard to the consequences.
Logic and supporting argument?
If this all boils down to sven’s perception which is in contradiction to logic and every stated supporting argument from evryone who should know then I can safely call her assertion groundless.
But we agreed on the one definition. If you’re going to change it at your convenience then we may as well give up now. As I said above this will give a Tower of Babel situation and make debate impossible.
I have conceeded numerous times that killing is not a compassionate act, just as climbing a ladder is not a fearful act. And just as one can be fearful and climb one can be compassionate and kill. Your argument requires us to make the massive logical leap that what we acknowledge is true for many other emotions and is never demonstrably untrue for any emotion must in fact be so for compassion. This is a very seriously flawed argument for that reason alone.
See how this is an argument from ignorance? You make the observation that an act doesn’t require compassion or unicorns and from their you leap to the conclusion that compassion must have been absent in the first place. Their is no logic leading to this conclusion and no reason for beleieving it aside from an absence of facts to the contrary. This is a classic argument fom ignorance. We know that I have stated that their is compassion. We know that others have stated there is compassion. We know that committing an act against an emotion even while in the grip of that emotion is possible. We know of no instances where it is not possible for a sane mane to commit an act against an emotion while still feeling that emotion. I commit an act against the emotion stated to be felt by myself and others in this situation. You then say that one possible conclusion is hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Well of course it is, but only becasue you presuppose hypocrisy. Such a conclusion runs contrary to all that has been stated by those involved. It is in no way supported by what we accept of human psychology and all we know from personal experience.
It could equally be that a unicorn is responsible, but only because we presuppose unicorns. Such a conclusion runs contrary to all that has been stated by those involved. It is in no way supported by what we accept of human psychology and all we know from personal experience.
Of course we could then suggest that it is because I can feel an emoion and over-ride it. Such a conclusion does not run contrary to all that has been stated by those involved. It is supported by what we know from personal experience.
Yes you can argue hypocrisy and I can just as easily argue unicorns. We both have as much evidence, but I’m sure neither argument goes far towards eliminating ignorance.
Strawman. I’ve never seen the Earth is round, I have to accept the preponderance of evidence, combined with the word of those who have seen it and come to the only conclusion that doesn’t run counter to my experiences in this world.
I say my emotional suite includes compassion. You’ve never seen my emotional suite yet refuse to accept the preponderance of evidence, or the word of those who have seen it and come to the only conclusion that doesn’t runs counter to your experiences in this world.
Now isn’t that slightly more in keeping with the stated facts and known experience than unicorns?
It is totally unreasonable. It is unreasonable because reason tells us that it is possible to commit an act in direct opposition to an emotional state. It is not reasonable to assume that an animal being forced to jump through a ring of fire after a severe whipping feals no fear of fire. It is not reasonable to assume that a prisoner being led into the gas chambers in Texas feels no fear of the chamber. The act is at odds with a fear of gassing but a more pressing concern over-rode that fear. It is not reasonable to assume the men boarding the landing barges for Normandy felt no fear of being shot. The act is at odds with a fear of being shot but a more pressing concern over-rode that fear. It is not reasonable to assume that a paramedic amputating someone’s limb in a car crash does not feel compassion or revulsion at the act. The act is at odds with feeling compassion and revulsion but a more pressing concern over-rode that fear. It is not reasonable to assume that a dieter not buying a chocolate bar does not feel hunger or a desire for chocolate. The act is at odds with feeling hunger and desire but a more pressing concern over-rode that fear. It is not reasonable to assume a hostage in an airplane feals no desire to leave the plane. Remaining there is at odds with the desire to leave but…
I could go on all day. Quite clearly the concept that it is reasonable to assume an emotional state must match a person’s actions is ludicrous.
Ahh, then if we want to stick to your strictly logical system fear, at the moment of boarding the landing barges, was not present.
Fear, at the moment of jumping through the fiery ring, is not present.
compassion and revulsion, at the moment of amputation, is not present.
desire to leave, at the moment of the hijack, is not present.
The reason why this is illogical is that we have already conceded that such a contradiction of action and enmotion occurs virtually every day. It is both logical and possible for them to happen.
Again you are making the massive leap of logic that what we acknowledge is true for many other emotions and is never demonstrably untrue for any emotion must in fact be illogical and impossible for compassion. This is a very seriously flawed argument for that reason alone. If something is accepted as being true, yet by your reasoning is illogical, as you state above, this demonstrates that your reasoning is flawed. Your logic has produced an obvious paradox. Assuming that you’re not suggesting we re-install universe and re-boot your argument must be illogical.
No I said reasonable proof and a preponderance of evidence.
A corpse is not reasonable proof of hypocrisy because reason tells us that in any other case commiting an act against our emotional state is not only possible, but usually desireable and hence probable. Reason therefore tells us this is probably the case here.
A preponderance of evidence does not point to a cattle corpse indicating a lack of compassion because the prepoderance of evidence is that all the killers have claimed compassion and in a preponderance of other cases commiting an act against their emotional state was not only possible, but usually desireable and hence probable. Reason therefore tells us this is probably the case here.
Because sven percieves it that way is not evidence, nor is it proof.
Again I fear you are being delberately obtuse.
truth (tr th)
Conformity to fact or actuality.
So yeah it’s pretty safe to say that someones perception of an event does not affect the actuality of said event or its conformity to fact. Unless where back to arguing Schroedinger’s Sasquatch again.
If you’re arguing that there is no truth or fact aside from what people percieve then I have to assume you are trolling on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance. By that reasoning their is no ignorance since the simple act of percieving the moon to be made of green cheese makes it both true and factual.
But as I say I assume you are in fact being deliberately obtuse.
No, you’ve conceded that “climbing a ladder woulndn’t imply hypocracy, for you may certainly be scared as you climb each rung of the ladder”. No need to presuppose any values at all. We have established with certainty that it is possible to be inconsistent yet honest in ones staed emotions and beliefs. Values don’t enter into it. An agnostic, as masochist and a hedonist can all equally claim that “climbing a ladder woulndn’t imply hypocracy, for you may certainly be scared as you climb each rung of the ladder”. We have evidence that in another case commiting an act against our emotional state is not only possible, but actually desireable and hence probable. Full stop.
No, the definition is dependant on our agreement of the definition, which we have done. A emotionally subjective grounds for viewing whether such a definition should be applied may be dependent on our ability to assess what a person feels. That however only strenthens my case that claiming “that all meatatarians who oppose torture are hypocrites” is baseless and illogical.
Strawman. I have stated several times that I do agree that feelings can guide motivation. What you have failed to do in any way demonstrate any logic or facts supporting the assertion that those who kill do not feel compassion. You must establish that the feeling of compassion exclusively and solely guides a motivation for not killing to the exclusion of all else to justify the charge of hypocrisy. So long as it is possible that the feeling of compassion is not mutually exclusive of killing this line of argument remains an argument that it’s possible and therfore must be so. This is an argument from ignorance.
Well, if we all had our patented fact and truth finders there wouldn’t be any problem, I agree.
[/quote]
fact (f kt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
Again I fear you are being deliberately obtuse. What sven interprets things to be in no way alters the Knowledge or information we possess based on real occurrences. It only affects that which is absed on what ocurs in her mind. I can only reapeat what I said above. It’s pretty safe to say that someones interpretation of an event does not affect the information we possess based on said event. Unless where back to arguing Schroedinger’s Sasquatch again.
If you’re arguing that there is no truth or fact aside from what people interpret then I have to assume you are trolling on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance. By that reasoning their is no ignorance since the simple act of interpreting the moon to be made of green cheese makes it both true and factual.
And at this stage the whole line of reasoning collapses because you have made one huge Mofo assumption that has been quite clearly rendered invalid time and again in this thread.
That assumption is “THE ONLY EMOTION A PERSON IS FEELING AT ANY GIVEN INSTANT IS THE ONE HE HAS EXPRESSED AND THE ONLY GUIDING FORCE BEHIND A PERSON"S ACTIONS IS EMOTION”
If we don’t make this huge assumption the above quote reads:
Since I have said several times that there is possible motivation here of greed (an emotion), will to live (probably an emotion) and a logical decision based on higher concerns this assumption is one you can not justify making.
If you don’t make that assumption then a conclusion that those feelings are based on other emotions more powerful and over-riding than the stated emotions or based on cold hard logic is just a likely. Considering that such a conclusion does not run contrary to all that has been stated by those involved and is supported by what we know from personal experience I’d have to say that the conclusion you reached above is about as logical as saying that "If we find that a preson’s actions run counter to a person’s professed feelings we find that the actions are certainly true, so those actions must have been the result of mind control by the IPU. It’s certainly possible but it’s not logically supportable.
No, it’s logically flawed because it relies on an assumption that cannot be validly made as demonstrated above. If we do make that assumption then I would be forced to attack a tiger that got me angry since I’m not allowed to feel fear or compassion while I feel anger and I must act out my anger to its ultimate (and not logical) conclusion. You couldn’t climb a ladder if you were afraid, even if I offered you $100, 0000 since you would have to act on your fear to its ultimate conclusion and it couldn’t be overridden by logic or greed. If that assumption isn’t made then your conclusion, while possible, is not based on logic but rtaher runs counter to the evidence. As such it is an argument from ignorance. We can’t prove it isn’t true so it must be true.
But this again makes the logical flaw of assuming that I have expressed all the emotions I have, that I am only allowed to feel one emotion at a time and I am not allowed to override emotions with logic or IPU mind control, or church indoctrination, or… Once we remove those big assumptions the conclusion collapses into one of millions of possible conclusions including IPU mind control. You then have to logically justify why you chose the one you did.
But sven didn’t make a value judgement either. She made a statement, and statements in GD have to be supported with logic or facts. If this can’t be done the staement can be dismissed as illogical and groundless.
That is not a logical argument. It’s another circular argument. You claim hypocrisy. You attempt to support this with the statement that I kill while claiming compassion and that killing isn’t compassionate. I point out that climbing a ladder isn’t fearful either and we agree that at least in that one instance emotion/override is not evidence of hypocrisy. You claim that it is in this case all the same. When asked why you respond that it’s because only perspective can determine if an emotion is present, and from your perspective it looks like it’s not present. I ask what that perspective is based on and you reply that it’s the fact that I claim compassion and then kill. I ask you to support why how you can logically use an emotion/over-ride situation to present a perspective of hypocrisy. You say that it’s because only perspective can determine if an emotion is present, and from your perspective it looks like it’s not present.
That is grounded solely on your emotional outlook and has no basis in logic. If I percieve the moon is made of green cheese I can’t use that as support for the satement the moon is made of green cheese. One is predicated on the other. If I didn’t pervieve the moon was green cheese I wouldn’t make the statement. By trying to argue from perspevtive you’re arguing that a mental state that leads to a statement can support the statement. I’m not sure what that is but it sure ain’t valid. You’re actually attempting to present a logical argument in support of a satement and valiadte it by saying it’s not logical, only based on perspective.
I’m only to well aware it is not a fact. It is a groundless and illogical assertion. That was my initial response to it, and that is what you are attempting to argue against. The problem is that it was presented as fact. Struth, you don’t have to tell me it’s not fact, it’s not logical either.
No evidence plants can feel pain any more then a rock can so why not? If we’ve got to eat why not eat something that can’t feel pain.
Lotta questions in one their. I don’t see animals killing each other as being equally wrong. I see it as being equally right. It’s right when I do it and it’s right when they do it. I have no objections to people killing seals, though I would certainly object if they were unnecessarily exterminating the species.
Point of clarification. Cats and snakes require more nutrients meat than humans, but humans require meat (at least animal fat) or we die. Vegans survive by eating microbial supplements that supply their B12, but cats and snakes could also survive on vegetatrian diets if we were prepared to waste the energy necessary to make a complete synthetic microbial/plant diet fpr them.
As I have demonstrated above (in the middle of my marathon post) as things stand if all people gave up killing animals about 75% of the population would be dead within a couple of years. Since I don’t find it objectionable to kill a locust to get wheat protein i don’t see why I should object to killing a cow to obtain muscle protein. If I did find it objectionable then a lot of people are gonne have to die.
Cite please?
In actually fact it’s one of those genetic truths that we can thank evolution for. It’s a plain and simple truth that I can subjugate, dominate or kill any animal on this planet, bar none. By the only standard that matters in this argument they are inferior. Doesn’t mean I can’t respect them though.
A hell of a lot because within two hours I’d have a functional spear with which I could kill anything on the serengeti with the possible exception of elephants, rhinos and hippos. Stick me out their with an H&H .600 nitro and I’ll show you real respect!
Cite please?
I could provide a fair bit of evidence suggesting that it is because in the course of our evolutionary history those who could and did “generally tear up the environment at their whim” had lots more children. as a result we now have an inbuilt drive to “generally tear up the environment at our whim”. Thing called evolution. It doesn’t have any goals in mind, it just works.
I couldn’t agree more. Now if only I had some evidence that anyone is actually making that assumption based on that reason I’d probably be in a better position to agree with you.
I most certainly am not arguing that explicitly. As a believer in an external world I agree that there are facts which are independent of human perception. However, we can only know these facts through perception, and the very act of perceiving puts each individuals taint of understanding on gathering that fact.
We are only using one definition. The definition is not ultimately precise. the situation we are discussing involves a great load of interpreation on the part of the players. It is not reasonable to say that just because we can demonstrate that a person can override fear when climbing a ladder that all men can because, frankly, not all men can. Some people are just that afriad of heights.
I find you are taking what you interpret to be truths about your particular views on compassion and human emotion in general and assuming they are–maybe even must be–true in the case of all humans. That is simply not the case.
Emotion exists purely in the mind that is perceiving it. It is also interpreted purely within the mind that is perceiving it. One person’s understanding of compassion may lead him, as an analogous behavior type to those who practice Jadism (sp?), to conclude that the emotion of compassion cannot be overridden. If they were to then think like you are thinking, all people everywhere experience compassion that cannot be overridden. This is simply not the case.
They are right, by them and by those standards, to call you a hypocrite.
It does more than simply not require compassion, it requires the antithesis of compassion.
Precisely! You’ve got it! now, turn it around on yourself…that’s right… not everyone thinks like you or even can think like you.
Calling you a hypocrite for eating meat runs counter to your experiences in the world. This is why you find it to be a falsehood. To someone who finds that compassion cannot be overridden, or to someone who finds that to hold contradictory opinions simultaneously indicates hypocricy, they find it to be true. All hypothetical persons here are using the same definition of hypocricy.
The reason why it is illogical to you is because you are trying to apply it, simultanously, to all people everywhere.
Some people have a fear so strong they don’t fly, ride ships, climb ladders. This fear cannot be overridden. Some people look at compassion in a similar way.
Frankly, consider what started a good chunk of this debate from us: different levels of emotional commitment. It is against experience, reason, hypothetical situations accepted in this thread, and anecdotal evidence to conclude that even if we accept tiered emotional commitment that all tiers of commitment must look the same.
For some people, honestly, compassion is at the very top, or so high up that the necessary “survival” conditions which would require its breach are unimaginable in today’s society.
In fact, as an addition to that it is important to note that even though we accept an external reality with its corresponding facts and truths that that does not and cannot apply to emotional perception. Emotions are not independantly verifiable at all.
You’re incredibly wrong here. There is absolutely no shame or cause for it. Humans are omnivorous predators. We also have the mental and social capacity to maximize all our advantages as a species and put ourselves at the top of the food chain.
Along with those mental and social capacities, we have developed a sense of noblese oblige toward other creatures, to an extent. Consequently, even though we kill them according to our nature, we do it cleanly and efficiently according to our sense of responsibility inherent by being at the top.
Personally, I view the eating of meat and the use of animal products as both a benefit of my species and as a nod of thanks for all of the human before me who fought, bred and died to make humanity the master of its domain. Shame, sir? Absolutely not. Pride? Definitely.
I’ back, sorry about the delay, I’ve had a fairly hectic week so I’ve been engaging in a bit of hit-and-run posting on these boards, but responding to this debate actually requires time and thought.
Because we have defined it it is ultimately precise. Sorry, but if you can’t agree on a precise definition then sven’s statement is necessarily based on imprecise judgements, and as baseless.
Agreed. Of course that was exactly my point. You can’t argue that a statement like ‘all meatatrians are hypocrites’ is reasonable and logical because it can not reasonably and logically apply to all meatatarians. By the use of your above statement we can rule out any possibility of you ever providing a reasoned logical argument as basis for such a claim. Ergo you must demonstrate a factual one. You’re doing a wonderful job of arguing my case here.
I am refusing to take any interpretations at all. I am only stating what we have both accepted to be factual and/or logical and demonstrating how they are at odds with sven’s statement and your line of argument. I have never taken any interpretations as true without your consent.
It’s Jaiinsm IIRC.
Ayyhow that argument is a logical fallacy who’s name I also cannot recall.
I have presented an example of how the facts as accepted by all participants are at odds with your reasoning, and you are now attempting to state that if those facts were true universally then it would be illogical. Of course it would, but they don’t have to apply universally, they only have to apply to the argument you present. The facts speak against emotions being necessarily overpowering for all people in this instance, that doesn’t meant they can’t be overpowering for some people in some instances. You’re effectively trying to say that because we accept that crows are black birds that my logic is flawed becasue all black birds aren’t crows.
This is a logical fallacy and the argument must therefore be removed from the debate. As such the conclusion that such a fallacy justifies the epithet of hypocrite is completely unfounded.
Even if that were true, and I don’t accept it is, your argument still requires such a huge leap in logic as to be logically unsupportable. Climbing a ladder when frightened requires courage, the antithesis of fear, yet we all accept that fear is felt. Antithetic emotions are in no way mutualy exclusive.
You are now simply making an observation that an act requires dogs and from there you leap to the conclusion that cats must have been absent.
They may well have been absent, but their is no logical reason for believing this since we know of many instances wher the two can co-exist, just as we know of instances where fear and courage can co-exist.
This line of argument has no logical basis.
This argument is a combination of two fallacies. One is the ‘all crows are black birds’ fallacy explained above, the other an argument from ignorance.
You can easily spot these by simply subtituting the crows/IPU for whatever is being argued for:
"not everyone thinks like you or even can think like you.Saying an IPU exists and that all black birds are crows runs counter to your experiences in the world. This is why you find it to be a falsehood. To someone who finds that some black birds are ravens, or to someone who finds that ,the presence of all the pretty flowers indicates the IPU, they find both these to be true. All hypothetical persons here are using the same definition of crows and Unicorns.
The argument from ignorance is obvious, someone finding that the miraculous nature of the world indicates God does not logically prove God. It proves they think it does.
The ‘black crows’ argument of course hinges on your assumption that by finding some black birds are crows, and saying so, the fact of other birds being black must run counter to my experiences. An invalid assumption. Similarly your argument above hinges on the assertion that by finding that in some circumstances compassion can be overridden the fact that in other circumstances “compassion cannot be overridden” “runs counter to my experiences in the world”. Of course we can all see clearly that I never claimed that all black birds are crows or that compassion can never be overridden.
So long as some black birds are crows any argument that hinges on an assumption that being black requires a bird not to be a crow is clearly illogical.
So long as some compassion can be volountarily countered any argument that hinges on an assumption that volountarily acting counter to compassion requires to a lack of compassion is clearly illogical.
More black crows. I’m starting to feel like I’m in a remake of “The Birds”.
Of course the examples I gave are illogical because I’m trying to apply it universally. That was the point of my parodies. You were attempting to build a logical argument hinged on the assertion that (quote)“if we want to stick to your strictly logical system compassion, at the moment of killing, is not present.”. As you yourself have concluded this is illogical because you are trying to apply it to all people everywhere. Some people may well have an overwhelming compassion for steers. That does not mean that for all people by a “strictly logical system compassion, at the moment of killing, is not present”. Since we both concede this is true your argument based on the assertion is invalidated and can be disregarded.
Again you are doing a brilliant job arguing my case.
Agreed, but this seems to support my assertion that sven’s blanket statement regarding emotions must be illogical and baseless. How exactly does conceding this support you case.
Agreed, but this does not mean that everyone feels that way, and as such anyone who does kill an animal must never have felt compassion.
Or to put it another way: For some birds, honestly, the black gene is at the very top, or so high up that the necessary genetic conditions which required for its breach are unimaginable in today’s society.
This does not mean that all birds carry that gene, and as such any animal that does have have white plumage must never have been a bird.
You’re attempting to construct a logical basis for a blanket statement from a specific example. That’s illogical in itself. It’s like trying to construct a support for a skyscraper on an egg.
It is a shame you think I am arguing your case, as your case hinges on universally accepted definitions of emotions. Since emotions are not present except in the person that feels them, they are not independently verifiable.
Because emotions are not independently verifiable, any assumption that your perception of emotions should act as a stop-gap in someone else’s perception of emotions is, in itself, the error.
That is, being two different people, we cannot independantly agree on what “compassion” precisely means, and even if we do (as you and I have done to some degree) that doesn’t stop even from strolling in with her perceptions of compassion to screw the whole thing up. (apologies, even, for your continued reference in this thread if it bothers you).
Now, there is no way, without independent emotions, for sven to reference what exactly compassion means. She may simply and swiftly reject our definitions and state unequivocally: “Well, whatever it is you’re feeling, it isn’t compassion. If it was, you neither would nor could kill animals.” And what are you going to say, gaspode? She’s got her definition of compassion wrong? With respect to what?
Without an objective source for defining emotions, a person can effectively interpret theirs however they want, and be correct in doing so.
I say “correct,” but that is a bit of a misnomer. If a person has no other understanding of emotion-- and there is no reason I can see that they should have one-- then it is neither wrong nor right as there is no standard with which to compare. It simply is.
Nah, I think it’s a hijack, though on the same topic, so it’s not really.
WTF
If you accept that as true, then how why the hell are you attempting to argue that there is some basis for svens assertion. Sven made a stament that by your own admission is not independently verifiable. ie it’s baseless. I don’t have a case here. I simply noted that sven’s statement was baseless and unsupportable and you said that you could nake a case that supported it. Now you’re saying that the one conclusion of the statement, hypocrisy, can’t be independently verified. Basically it exists if you say it exists and doesn’t if it doesn’t. The IPU can’t be independently verified either, which is why we call it unsupportable and baseless.
This is a strawman because I’ve never made any such assumption, ever. I’ve simply stated that a perception of emotions that both you and I agree to be true conflicts with the conclusions drawn by some of your arguments, rendering invalid your assertion that such conclusions are universal. Paragraph disregraded
That is, being two different people, we cannot independantly agree on what God/the IPU/venusians precisely means, and even if we do that doesn’t stop even from strolling in with her perceptions of compassion to screw the whole thing up.
A complete absence of evidence or even definition of God, the IPU, venusians or compassion does not prove that God, the IPU, venusians or compassion exist or do not exist. This is the ultimate argument from ignorance. Sven’s statement hinges on compassion never existing. Saying that my being unable prove it did exist, or even what it is, validates her statement is like saying that your being unable to prove the IPU exists validates the IPU. It’s a massive argument from ignorance, not a logical reason. Paragraph disregraded
Fine, sven says that that cloud is a manifestaion of the IPU.
Now, there is no way, without independent analysis, for sven to reference what exactly the IPU is. She may simply and swiftly reject our definitions and state unequivocally: “Well, whatever it is you’re seeing, it is a unicorn. If it wasn’t then the world would not exist.” And what are you going to say, sven? She’s got her definition of an IPU wrong? Argument from ignorance. Paragraph disregraded
See how bloody silly this argument is? We can’t know what someone believes defines an emotion, or a world creating unicorn. What we can say is that most people claim they see a cloud there, we have absolutely no evidence that the cloud is a manifestaion of a unicorn and therefore sven’s staement is groundless and illogical because of the lack of evidence. It can’t be supported by the lack of evidence as you are trying to do.
Most people claim they feel compassion here, we have absolutely no evidence that the compassion isn’t felt and therefore sven’s staement is groundless and illogical because of the lack of evidence.
Your entire rationale appears to be one massive argument from ignorance. Paragraph disregraded
This is a strawman. Sven was not attempting to interpret her emotions. She rather clearly stated what the emotions are and were of every meatatarian who condemned the torture of animals.
Paragraph disregraded
I say “correct,” but that is a bit of a misnomer. If a person has no other understanding of an IPU-- and there is no reason I can see that they should have one-- then it is neither wrong nor right as there is no standard with which to compare. It simply is.
Argument from ignorance combined with the strawman from the last paragraph.
Paragraph disregraded
erislover you’re whole line of reasoning has degenerated into an argument based on your inability to confirm the emotions of millions of people. That is clearly an argument from ignorance and can only be disregarded.
I’m actually quite enjoying this, but next time you post can you just try to substitute the IPU for whatever it is you’re trying to prove. If it slips in too easily then there’s a flaw in your reasoning.
What you are stating is that your ability to override your compassion invalidates any claim that you are a hypocrite.
sven cannot know that.
If her understanding of compassion leads her to the conclusion that compassion cannot be overridden, you are a hypocrite to her.
This is an argument from ignorance. Precisely! But that ignorance is not able to be overcome without one person or the other changing their understanding of their emotions.
Your understanding of compassion cannot, and will not without a change of understanding, override hers.
So, are you prepared to demonstrate why your understanding of your emotions is more correct?