I'm confused as to why you think parents are obligated in any way with Fafsa?
For one, Fafsa stands for Free Application for Federal Student Aid. It's not a grant or loan by itself.
Secondly, the grants are federally funded.
Thirdly, (almost all) of the available loans do not require a cosigner. The student can take them out on his/her own.

Unless you're complaining about this coming from taxpayer dollars? Which is a whole different question.

:grin: :up:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to converge, in mathematics, means a<1. To be able to complete the movement it would have to be a=1.

I understand what you meant :wink:
I'm just quibbling with a couple of assumptions in that sentence--what makes someone a philosopher if not being philosophical? Even if you conclude not all philosophical thinkers are philosophers, why can't philosophical thinkers come up with original ideas? In other words, on what basis do you assume it's not his original idea?

Since Shakespeare was no philosopher he must have got it from somewhere. — Pronsias del Mar

That's an ad hominem if I ever saw one. Shakespeare was very philosophical. To be or not to be?

You could say, he probably got it from somewhere, because he borrowed a lot of ideas from other places...

Yes, there is.
Anyway, that's why I suggest that Planck units solve the paradox--space is not infinitely divisible.
Kant explains in the Critique of Pure Reason why it's hard for us to accept finite divisibility--it's outside of anything humans ever experience, so we can't wrap out heads around it.

Peter SInger is a utilitarian. I personally think Tom Regan was better at making the case convincing. (Though they both have a lot of value to add to the discussion.)
Carol Adams also does an amazing job explaining why it's so hard for people to accept even the notion of vegan/vegetarianism.

Even if the net sum is finite, if it were infinitely divisible, you'd always have one more halfway point to reach. In fact, the paradox would damn us all to complete inertia, because there's halfway points between us and the halfway points, and halfway points to those, etc.

Not sure what you're getting at? Maybe your math degree needed to be supplemented by some English classes so you could learn how to express yourself clearly.

Yes. Unless a number is given at which to stop.

2, 4, 6, 8, ...
Implies all even numbers to infinity.

2, 4, 6, 8, ... , 200
Implies all even numbers until 200.

Partial sums only explains how theoretically in math you can have infinite points in finite space. It doesn't solve the paradox, rather it lends itself to justifying the paradox.

How can it not matter? If space is only finitely divisible, it solves the paradox.

we know there are infinite parts — Jeremiah

Thing is, we don't know that space is infinitely divisible. Atomicity versus Infinite Divisibility is still up for debate in science, and things like Zeno's paradox suggest that there is a smallest possible division of space.

Currently, I believe, Planck lengths are theoretically the smallest possible distances.

Michael's right that c) should be 0% to really make it a paradox through and through.

But Jeremiah is right that when you are given 4 options to choose AT RANDOM (your selection then can't be based on knowing that A and D are the same) the probability would never be 33%.

That being said, I'm pretty sure none of these misunderstandings mean you need to get snarky, Jeremiah. It's just math and logic.

I've read that humor evolved as a reward system for finding mistakes in behaviors, patterns, or causal relations.
For example, laughing at someone falling makes us more aware of how and why someone fell, thus making us less likely to do it.

However, what bothers me about vegan 'superlativism' is its intolerance, as shown on this thread, for anyone who doesn't go to the same extremes. — Txastopher

This coming from the person who suggested we should just ignore theists so as to get rid of them?

I have no problem admitting that I don't think the middle ground is always the way to go.
I don't see a plausible middle ground between slavery and equal rights for humans.
I don't see a plausible middle ground between child abuse and parenting as best you can.
And many other examples...

If you draw a line and say "here, this is ethical enough" you have to be able to justify it with more than just labeling an even more ethical stance "extreme" without any real argument to back you up.

completely unrelated aspects of my posts than you are in actually discussing the issue. — Pseudonym

I literally said I wasn't intetested in discussing the issue with you anymore. But it's due to the fundamental illogic of your argumentation, which is anything but unrelated to the discussion.

You: You're proselytizing!
Me: No, because x, y, z.
You: Just because I said you were proselytizing doesn't mean I said you were proselytizing.

:rofl:

Well it appears to be very much 'worth your time' as you keep responding. It's almost as if this one tiny thread is the only point you feel you can win on. — Pseudonym

I'll admit, your posts are like a trainwreck-it's hard to look away. :lol:

This thread has followed the regular pattern of a claim being made, and arguments for and against that claim being proposed, and in turn arguments for and against those arguments proposed. If that is your definition of proselytizing, then the whole forum is guilty of it.
But I think you're just annoyed that YOU can't win the argument, and are therefore accusing us of proselytizing... Again, very ironic.

You: uber and nkbj disagree.
Me: no, we don't. *shows evidence*
You: I didn't say you disagreed!
Me: yes, you did *shows evidence*
You: uber and nkbj disagree.

Like I said, not worth my time.

Show me where I claimed that you and Uber don't agree on the severity of harm. — Pseudonym

Okay:

You calculated it to 15 times more harmful. Uber, kindly linked to a large number of studies, the first one of which calculates it to be only 1.5-2 times more harmful — Pseudonym

I mean... Are you TRYING to be a strawperson? :rofl:

You're just floundering. I could counter your whole post point by point (yet again), but I'm sort of tired of doing that.

Suffice to say that everything you say is about as logical as taking my claim that hunting kills 14 times more animals than harvesting plants, and Uber's claim that animal agriculture is 1.5-2 times worse for the environment and somehow deriving from that the conclusion that we don't agree on the severity of harm caused by a meat versus plant-based diets or that our numbers don't match. Absolutely ridiculous. I'll spell it out in case you're still confused: Uber and I were talking about different things, and our numbers were representing different aspects of harm.

Since everything you say is as well-though through as the above, and no matter what I say you're going to apply the same illogic to "counter" my claims, engaging with you any further would just be a waste of my time and energy.

No, because you are a vegan. The "all other studies" are going to be studies trying to prove veganism, just like Davis's was trying to prove meat eating. Its confirmation bias, we all have it. All we can say without bias is that there are arguments for either case presented by intelligent, well-informed experts. Therefore, no case is unequivocally correct from an ethical pont of view — Pseudonym

You insisted on the numbers when you assumed they worked in your favor. Now I've shown how they don't and you're calling me biased.... Oh the irony!

Yes, Davis's study. The mere existence of counter arguments does not render a study no longer evidence. — Pseudonym

I didn't argue against Davis' study. I used it to prove you wrong.
And also, you were JUST arguing that you disagree with his study.... Make up your mind.

None of these systems use land which could be used for growing arable crops, so if you don't eat these forms of meat you are directly requiring a greater quantity of land to be taken up with agriculture — Pseudonym

That model is not sustainable for feeding the entire world's population.
But I did look up sheep farming in the UK:
https://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/know-your-sheep/year-on-a-sheep-farm/
And while it does seem much nicer than the usual factory farming, it does still require fields to grow plant food on with which to feed the sheep. The farmers supplement the sheeps diet with hay and pellets. Not sure how much it is, but it doesn't come out to zero acres of farmable land used.

Can you not conceive of the idea that in a few month's time an article might be published showing how Middleton has actually made an error in his calculations and in fact the total number of deaths turns out to be higher in arable afterall? Then another article showing how that critique missed a key point and Middleton was right afterall, and so on ... — Pseudonym

Sure. It's possible anything we think we know is false. It's also possible that we will someday find out smoking actually cures cancer. But I'm going to base my actions on our best current knowledge and not what could possibly some day maybe be shown to be the case.

I used Davis' study because it is the one which counts animal deaths the highest and which is most often cited by pro-meat eaters. All other studies I have come across say he highly overestimated the numbers.... So I was actually just being conservative in your favor.

But since you're the one who falsely claimed both that you would need whole hectares of food to equal one deer, and that there are hundreds of deaths per hectare.... Do you have any research to back it up that you can show us here? Or is ot just wishful thinking on your part?

Based on the sum of research, we not only have fewer deaths total with veganism, but those deaths also are unintentional. Both aspects speak in favor of veganism. I should think it goes without saying that it's more wrong to intentionally kill someone.

Re:2-4, as previously stated, veganism requires less land to be used for agriculture; we already have permanently changed the landscape so the best we can do is reforest a few areas; it is not possible to feed the entire human population based on some hunter-gatherer ideal anymore.

I wouldn't even have given it to Obomber.

Prizes Trump deserves include:
Ugliest American
Dumbest Tweets
Most Lies in a Single Speech
Most Hate Promoted

At most I was giving chatterbears a light ribbing — Moliere

Okay. I misinterpreted you then :sweat:

I wouldn't even mind if vegans won their political goals. There would be some good from it. — Moliere

:smile:

You're missing the point. — Pseudonym

This is what I was responding to:

The use of wild or grass fed animals to supply protein kills just one animal, to grow the equivalent quantity of legumes requires the deaths of hundreds, not to mention the destruction of the habitat of thousands more. — Pseudonym

I very directly addressed and refuted your point. Sorry, not sorry :kiss:

1. The Forestry commission already kill the 30,000 deer for the good of the forest, so my comparison is not with an already established crop, but the cost of destroying the natural landscape currently occupied by large herbivores to make way for lentils, which I can guarantee wiil cause more than your 15/hectare deaths. — Pseudonym

The fields already exist because we use 70% of crops to feed our livestock. No need to make more, and actually we can reforest a huge percentage thereof, since not as many acres are needed to directly feed humans than are needed to feed the animals we then eat.

Do I trust your 'they' who've apparently measured all deaths from arable farming and come to a figure of 15/ha? — Pseudonym

If you wanted a source, you could have just asked nicely: http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc/

Carnivores eating herbivores is a natural process, I'm not about to advise playing God and re-arranging the ecosystems of the world on the reckoning of a few scientists who've done a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the total number of animals killed in either scenario. — Pseudonym

The idea that what humans do is any longer a natural and integral part of the ecosystem is just laughable. That boat sailed when we invented agriculture and it entered a whole new universe when we entered the industrial period.

And persuasion seems to be the goal at that point. — Moliere

I don't see any difference here than people insisting on being right in other threads here. Unless you'd claim that all threads here eventually devolve into mere persuasion? But then again, the art of rhetoric is the art of persuasion, so perhaps that's a big part of what all discussions are about?

For what it's worth, I have not for a moment thought that anyone would change their minds due to this thread. I've mainly seen it as a useful vehicle for helping me better clarify and articulate my own position.

I don't believe that's actually true. Let's do the math:

There's about 100lbs of meat on the average deer. And about 715 calories per lb. That's 71,500 calories per deer.
Soy yields on average 6 million calories per acre. There are 2.47 acres to a hectare. That's 14,820,000 calories per hectare.
They estimate that about 15 animals are killed per hectare of crops. 14,820,000 divided by 15 is: 988,000 calories per dead animal. 988,000 divided by 71,500 is 13.8.

Almost 14 times more animals are killed on a calorie for calorie basis when hunting deer than harvesting soy--which is not even one of the most calorie-dense crops.

:cool:

There's sooo many fallacies this whole "you're just a missionary" statement could fall under... suffice to say that it would be pure stubbornness on your part to look at this entire discussion and claim that the entire vegan position (even if you don't agree with it) lacks any merit whatsoever and that anyone trying to defend it is just being a missionary.
That goes against a core principle of philosophy--the principle of charity.

I'm saying that the suffering of other animals is nothing compared to the suffering of humans — Sapientia

It's not nothing. And even if that were true, giving up flesh still means NO ONE suffers. Which is a better outcome than some suffering.

The majority of meat currently comes from factory farms, which means the lives of the animals is definitely not "decent" or anything approximating decent. If you agree that they shouldn't be kept in such places and should be given decent lives, then you agree that their suffering matters. Period. No comparison to humans needed. If their suffering matters, and having a decent life matters, then killing them is wrong too.

Recent technology is making meat eating possible without harming animals, though. Clean meat, grown in a lab, is going to be available. I'll personally still find it gross (been vegan too long to go back, and I'm healthier for it anyhow), but you can then indulge without harming animals. Woot woot indeed :yum:

I don't think I'm being a consequentialist, and like I said, consequentialism doesn't work without a certain amount of deontology and vice versa, but okay, we'll entertain your argument for the fun of it:

Unless you are willing to only eat those animals who have died of natural causes, the eating of one implies killing it. Killing is a form of harm. The consequence of getting the flesh you want to eat is therefore harming a sentient being. Harming a sentient being is causing more harm than good.

I know that you could probably figure this out on your own if you actually tried, but okay, I'll explain it slowly:
Just now we were talking about being caught between two acts. I'm pointing out that giving up meat is nothing compared to the suffering of animals. You jumped to talking about sacrificing animals to save humans. I explained that no one is suggesting we sacrifice human lives or even cause them suffering. The great thing is, we can do both: we can let humans live AND let animals live. Woot woot!

That is a wholly different argument than explaining that human and animal suffering are alike in many significant ways that both matter morally.

Do you realise the risk that obligation entails by referring to nothing more than our current knowledge to judge the infinite future consequences of our actions? Do you really trust our current knowledge that much? — Pseudonym

We always have to go with our best knowledge and act as morally as we can accordingly. I don't see how we can reasonably act any differently. Yes, that means sometimes bad things will happen anyway, but that most certainly is better than doing wrong things knowingly.
But that also entails knowing when we don't know something. I know I don't know how to save gazelles from lions without causing disaster, therefore I don't try to.
Since our knowledge is not, nor probably could ever be infinite, we needn't try to judge infinite consequences. But any foreseeable consequences should definitely be taken into account.

The key phrase being "capable of doing so." And by that I mean if we could do it in a way that wouldn't cause the ecosystem to collapse or tragedy to happen, obviously. And I'm not even seriously suggesting it, because we're obviously eons away from being able to do so, if we ever could.
It's just a hypothesis. Just like the p-zombie thread is based on hypothesis. Such scenarios just serve to help us articulate how and why we ought to do certain things.

nd does not even come close to the level of bad relating to the suffering and death of humans. — Sapientia

We're not talking about your suffering or death. No human is going to die because we decided not to hurt the animals.

You sidled from moral culpability to practicality. Are you saying that if a practical method arose by which we could prevent the lion from eating the gazelle without harming the ecosystem we would be morally obligated to do so? Ie, is your argument that the impractical or undesirable consequences are the only thing preventing us from having a moral obligation to prevent all predators from killing their prey? — Pseudonym

Saving the ecosystem is a greater good than saving the gazelle, though both are good. Since I cannot save both at this moment in time, I have to choose the greater good. When it becomes possible to do both, I should do both.

You (more chatterbears) seem to make a rights-based argument when it comes to eating meat, but now you're switching to a consequentialist argument when it comes to our obligation to prevent the murder of the gazelle by the lion. — Pseudonym

I haven't been arguing with the language of rights. And rights-based morality wouldn't be inconsistent with consequentialism anyway, since they both can be argued to contain elements of the other.

But what does it mean to talk of killing other beings unnecessarily? The killing that we're talking about is necessary to meet the demand for meat produce, so it can't be unnecessary in that sense. Does it just mean, "Not necessary for any purpose of which I approve"? If so, then it's really about your personal approval more than it is about necessity, and speaking in terms of the latter masks this. That would mean that what's being said is that to kill other beings for any purpose of which I do not approve is wrong. What makes your approval authoritative? — Sapientia

Hey, that's actually a pretty decent question! :wink:

I think part of the problem here rests on a bit of an equivocation. There is a difference between causal and moral necessity. Yes, in order for you to eat meat, it is causally necessary to kill animals.
When we talk about moral necessity, though, we have to be comparing two or more moral issues. You eating meat does not inherently entail a moral good. There are situations in which it might: like if your life depended on it, saving your life would be a moral good.
Even if you did argue that the fleeting pleasure of eating flesh was a moral good, it is clearly a very, very minor one and does not even come close to outweighing the bad of the suffering and death of the animal.

Are you implying that a woman's ability to vote is that of a dog? Because dogs lack the abilities required to vote. They do not lack the ability to suffer, that's why hurting them is wrong.