For example, the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.
Or the fact that if A obtains and B obtains, then it's not the case that neither A nor B obtain. — Terrapin Station
Those are not "objective facts" — chatterbears
So, we disagree on this. — Terrapin Station
Did you read anything else I wrote to you? This isn't about a disagreement. You are incorrect in labeling something as an objective fact, when it is not. I'd suggest you read a bit more on axioms and how they relate to principles within logic, math and ethics. — chatterbears
Why do you call those facts rather than logic? — DingoJones
You're being ridiculously patronizing. — Terrapin Station
You are perceiving me to be as such, — chatterbears
I am genuinely stating that I believe you are incorrect, — chatterbears
Quote me where I actually have acted in a way that displays a sole purpose of moral superiority. — chatterbears
And the reason you haven't gotten criticized for being vegetarian, is because you don't talk about the morality and ethics behind your decision making. I do. That's the difference. — chatterbears
I'm not sure how to make sense out of someone thinking that's it's not an objective relation that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time, for example. — Terrapin Station
We don't agree on some very core notions--whether moral claims can be true/false in any sense whatsoever, and whether logic/mathematics has any grounding in objective relations. The problem isn't that I'm not familiar with 101-level material. — Terrapin Station
The first move you make from that isn't to assume that I must not be familiar with rudimentary material. — Terrapin Station
Still waiting for you to quote me. — chatterbears
I'm talking about relations that obtain in the extramental world. — Terrapin Station
Still waiting for you to shut up about yourself and shift your focus to serving animals. — Jake
Terrapin believes he can call axioms 'objective facts' when it comes to logic. But when an axiom is held within ethics, he calls it preference. This is the core issue we had many posts ago, in which I told him he was contradicting himself. — chatterbears
Also, civilization began with cultivation of wheat, rice, barley, etc. (all plants) and not with livestock (animal) farming. — TheMadFool
Are we evolving into vegans? — TheMadFool
Eating animals in unethical because, as Nils Loc said it's not necessary to eat meat. How do herbivores survive if meat is essential? — TheMadFool
I guess we just don't care. — TheMadFool
He isnt contradicting himself, you just cannot recognise it as consistent becuase it is not framed to be consistent with YOUR views and/or axioms. — DingoJones
This is the source of the problem you are having communicating in this thread, it is also the reason why people focus on your moralising and self righteousness. How many people will you have to engage with and have them telll you the same thing before you will seriously consider the possibility that you are entirely wrong here? — DingoJones
Have you made an earnest effort to actually register everyones points? From your posts, its clear you arent really listening, you already firmly believe you are right and your questions posed are just poorly disguised rhetorical questions designed to establish your own moral authority. They are not designed to understand any other perspective and are not really meant for discussion. — DingoJones
Another symptom of this problem is your tendency to try and establish consensus against your opponents, as you just tried to do with me against Terrapin. I don’t know for sure if this stems from a habit of virtue signalling instead of forming real arguments, but I recognise the smell and Im not the only one. — DingoJones
You need to recognise your limitations, because you arent winning any of the arguments you are having and thats why. — DingoJones
Because it is not? The law of noncontradiction is an axiom one needs to accept — chatterbears
I know, that doesnt answer the question.
The relations you are talking about are logical, the axioms of logic. Why call them facts? — DingoJones
You made the claim that I am more focused with displaying my moral superiority, rather than focusing on the animals. I asked you to back up this claim by providing me with evidence of me doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. — chatterbears
Give me an alternative way of what would be better. — chatterbears
And then as an example I gave the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. That is not the same thing as the principle of noncontradiction — Terrapin Station
The reason is that logic and mathematics are more complicated in that regard in the way that they're based on, but not identical to, objective relations. Ethics isn't based on objective relations. — Terrapin Station
You can disagree with my view there, of course, but disagreeing doesn't imply that I'm not familiar with the same standard material, standard views that you're familiar with. Being familiar with and understanding something does NOT imply agreeing with it. — Terrapin Station
This entire thread is an exercise in your positioning yourself as being morally superior on the subject of animals. Pick any of your posts, there's your evidence. — Jake
Please note how you continually respond to this challenge over and over again, and have even started an entire new thread on the subject. That's because your focus is on Chatterbears, not on serving animals. — Jake
Here's how to debunk all of the above. — Jake
If you should discover that you lose interest in the topic if it doesn't involve moral sermonizing, then you will have enhanced your clarity. — Jake
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.