You can try, but there are laws against this. Most people support such laws. Most people do not support such laws that would protect animals from being eaten or otherwise used.
Ok, I’ll answer your question, but then you have to answer mine, because my question is similar.
I would rather not eat baby nor chicken. But if you really force it, then I would eat the chicken. You already knew that answer. But you cannot say that this is arbitrary discrimination or that I am a speciesist. In order to see that, you’ll have to answer my question about the neighbour’s baby and the orphan baby with another skin color. Your friend will say that he would rather eat none of the babies, but if you really force it, he will eat the mentally disabled orphan baby with a low life expectancy and another skin color. But that does not yet mean your friend is racist.
The mere fact that a majority of people supports something is not sufficient to make it right. There were times when the majority supported laws that you reject.
On the other hand the majority of people share basic moral values. And we can translate those values into a coherent ethical system that directs us towards veganism.
The majority uses incoherent (inconsistent and arbitrary) ethical systems, and we don’t have to respect those ethical systems.
Obviously. Right now, in this case, they’re on my side.
Your ethical system is just as arbitrary, even if you don’t recognize it. There’s nothing about including plants and rocks in your moral system that makes it less arbitrary. Having a “cut-off” is no more arbitrary than no cut-off whatsoever.
Between the animal and the human, I would eat the animal.
Between the human and the other human, I would starve.
You’ve never…actually…met someone who’s mentally disabled have you? If you were, you’d stop with the pro-Nazi arguments about how untermenshen aren’t really people.
Earthheart-
I was willing to let this go this morning because, hell, maybe there’s a debate here and you seemed willing to do so.
But we’re at what, six times you’ve cited your thesis in different posts?
I’m going to allow this thread to continue. But I’m going to remove all but the first link to your thesis. Posting it again will result in the thread being closed.
Fuck those cows.
I’m not sure why you believe a labor tax causes a deadweight loss when a tax on raw materials doesn’t. Both create an excess burden on the consumer.
And you think the markets don’t adjust to a new equilibrium with millions of people suddenly receiving an income subsidy?
Saying that a cite exists is not the same as actually providing one. Where are those studies or logical arguments?
That’s not the way this works. You’re the one who started this thread and wrote up your blog manifesto and vaunted thesis; tell me why I should believe you.
There have been quite a few mentioned here already. You don’t think, for example, that radically changing the economy to the extent that you propose might possibly have some effects your dataless proposal didn’t cover?
Maybe, but a lot of them aren’t. For example, why should I value the life of say, a chicken, as equal to or greater than that of a human? A human can tell me what it wants, or has parents who can act in its stead. We have a government whose authority derives from its mandate from the people it governs, not the chickens. I can point to works of art, scientific breakthroughs, etc. that validate the existence of humanity, if not every individual human; what have chickens ever done? Humans have languages; chickens do not. (Nor, for that matter, do bees, crows, etc. Language is not the same as communication.) And so on.
are you serious? Having a cut-off is arbitrary, because if you take a cut-off at X instead of Y or Z, we can always ask the non-trivial question: why at X and not at Y or Z? But if there is no cut-off, you cannot ask such a non-trivial question. the only question that you can ask is the trivial question that is always possible: why no cut-off instead of a cut-off? So the choice for no cut-off is a trivial or unavoidable arbitrariness, it is always either nothing or something. The choice for cut-off at X is a non-trivial arbitrariness, because the question “why X and not Y or Z?” is not trivial.
So we have to avoid all kinds of non-trivial, avoidable arbitrariness. Then we end up with a coherent ethical system, which is as coherent as a physical theory or a mathematical system. Take the system of natural numbers, with the Peano axioms (e.g. “every number as a unique successor”) You can always ask the trivial question: why this axiom instead of that? That is unavoidable. But no mathematician is going to take a non-trivially arbitrary axiom, such as: “every number has a successor, except the multiples of 534.” This is non-trivial arbitrariness because we can ask: why an exception for 534 instead of 7 or 9800?
So, if you claim “everything gets the basic right, except non-humans”, the exception is a non-trivial arbitrariness, like the exception for multiples of 534.
And with the exception of non-humans, what would you do with all the human-animal intermediates? The human-animal hybrids and chimeras, the human ancestors, the genetically modified human beings?
what crazy talk is this?
I have met some mentally disabled humans. But pro-Nazi talk? Where do you hear me saying that mentally disabled humans aren’t really people? I was very clear: everything gets the basic rights not to be used against one’s will, not to be killed against one’s will. Everything includes mentally disabled humans.
In my ethic, the moral status of mentally disabled humans is as high as the moral status they have in your ethic. The only difference is that in my ethic, the moral status of non-humans is higher than in your ethic. I do not degrade the disabled humans, I upgrade the non-humans. You seem to have a moral gravity bias REDACTED
clever argument 
the supply and demand in the labor market are not price-inelastic (the curves are not vertical). But the supply of natural resources (land, minerals) is price inelastic: the supply curve is vertical because no matter what price incentives, we cannot create or destroy land.
About the excess burden: a tax on land does not create an excess burden on the tenant: the tenant already pays the full economic rent of the land to the owner (landlord). (The same goes for a mortgage lender who pays the economic rent of land to the bank in terms of intrest payments.) The difference between no tax on land and a tax on land is that in the first case all the economic rent goes to the one landlord, whereas in the second the landlord has to pay the tax (the economic rent) to the government, who can distribute the tax revenue to everyone as a basic income, so the economic rent goes to everyone. With a tax on land, the economic rent is collectivized and the tenant pays exactly the same as without the tax.
there is a redistribution of economic rent, so the markets will adjust, naturally.
You can dive into the literature about georgism, the henry george theorem,… The rest (e.g. the price inelasticity of the supply of natural resources) is self evident.
But I already gave the arguments in my blog post REDACTED
So now it is up to you to give counter arguments. i already used my burden of proof.
if you say there will be some effects, then you are making the new, positive claim and hence the burden of proof is with you. I cannot argue with you as long as you don’t tell me which effects will appear.
Simply the claim that “don’t do anything because there might always be side effects that we don’t yet know” does not work, because we are not willing to follow such a hyperprecautionary principle consistently.
perhaps you value well-being? Perhaps you value what someone wants and likes? Well, a chicken has a well-being and has wants and likes (subjective preferences). Perhaps you value the right not to be killed against one’s will. well, a chicken is alive and has a will… Perhaps you value consistency and disvalue arbitrariness and discrimination.
Why did you add “or greater than that of a human”?
some mentally disabled orphans cannot tell what they want and don’t have parents who can act in its stead. A cow or a chicken clearly communicates about his pain and stress, we can see what he prefer and want. And we can act in its stead, like we were his parents.
nor the mentally disabled humans: they cannot vote and could not give any mandate. Be aware, because you are pretty close to degrading the mentally disabled humans.
why do you point at exactly those things that some mentally disabled humans cannot do, like works of art and science? There are disabled huamns who are less artistic than pigs. You are really degrading mentally disabled humans…
again you explicitly refer to something that some mentally disabled humans do not have. Please stop with “the pro-Nazi arguments about how untermenshen aren’t really people.” (quote from Fenris http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18628874&postcount=86)
Let me put it a different way – you have a cut-off too. I have an imaginary purple dinosaur friend who suffers greatly unless humans consume meat and fish. His suffering is unimaginable unless we are carnivorous. Why does your system cut him off? Why aren’t imaginary purple dinosaurs included in your system? What’s with the arbitrary exclusion of imaginary creatures?
Further, it’s relatively easy to craft a “basic moral assumption” that avoids any such cut-off – “anyone or anything that can express themselves about their rights or who has or had blood relatives within a few generations that can or could at one time express themselves about their rights has these basic rights”. No one and nothing is left out, even if this does not apply to any non-human creatures or objects on earth.
We all choose basic assumptions, and yours apparently includes only real and non-imaginary things and creatures. Mine places people above animals.
I don’t think your math example makes any sense, or at least it applies as much to your arbitrary exclusion of imaginary things as to my arbitrary valuation of humans above animals.
My system is just as “coherent” as yours – it has basic assumptions, just like yours, and includes arbitrariness, just like yours.
None exist right now that I’m aware of. If they do, then I would evaluate on a case-by-case basis.
By the way – my imaginary purple dinosaur example is obviously ridiculous. But so is your inclusion of inanimate objects in your moral system. It’s utterly ridiculous to include rocks, and it’s utterly ridiculous to include imaginary creatures. Excluding imaginary creatures, and excluding inanimate objects, is entirely logical and rational. Both have nothing to do with moral systems or morality.
A three month old baby is more intelligent than a chicken. You really have no idea how unintelligent a chicken is…or you have a hyper-romanticized idea about the intelligence of animals in general.
Or, he’s got no idea what a three month old baby is like.
Doesn’t he think humans and chimps can mate?
Based on this:
“human-animal hybrids”? Yeah, he clearly does believe that humans and chimps (and who knows what else–“chimeras?”) can mate.
I didn’t catch that the first go-round (I was looking for his call to invade the Sudatenland),
Apparently you don’t listen well.
Closed. And if you post a link like that again I’m going to assume you’re here to spam it and your posting privileges will be revoked.