I don’t think we should be over-extending morality to chickens. We should be looking out for each other, and living in harmony with nature as the dolphins do. — Noah Te Stroete
I’m sorry your mother doesn’t love you. — Noah Te Stroete
That's not what she tells me when we're in bed together. — S
You have sex with your mother? Incest is a sin. — Noah Te Stroete
You mentioned using the particular relation (rather than general relation, which I'm specifying because remember that I think there are only particulars) of a thing being x (or having property F) and not being not x (or not lacking property F) at the same time as something to do with ethics, but I pointed out that that doesn't have anything to do with ethics (or rather it doesn't have anything more to do with ethics than it does the price of tea in China, or garbage collection schedules, or whatever). So I'm not sure what you're talking about. You could say that ethics has to be in accord with that particular relation as a fact, but everything has to be in accord with every fact in that same sense, so again, it's difficult to say what it particularly has to do with ethics. — Terrapin Station
Maybe try being more verbose about what you have in mind. — Terrapin Station
The truth of your first statement hinges on your definition of "proper" survival. — S
And your following question appeals to a highly controversial notion about how we were "supposed" to be "by nature". — S
If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet where do you think they would get them? — Sir2u
If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet[, then] where do you think [that that] would get them? — S
However, it isn't a simple necessity for us to eat 300gm of meat everyday. Nor is it necessary for us to do so in order to live a healthy enough lifestyle. — S
It would only be "necessary" for someone, if, for example, they're a health freak with a fixation on achieving the ideal healthy lifestyle, and they're stuck on the notion that achieving that requires eating 300gm of meat everyday. But even then, that's not strictly necessary. Maybe instead, what's necessary for them is counseling. — S
These kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral, not eating in excess. — S
What’s wrong with the comparison? They eat what they evolved to eat, and we evolved to eat cooked meat. — Noah Te Stroete
Show me a dolphin who has made a conscious ethical judgement to refrain from eating fish, and you may just have a point. Otherwise you're just trying to nail jelly to your wife. — S
I think that proper would mean to most people a healthy life, not just healthy enough, and it should be obvious from the context in which I used it. — Sir2u
Firstly I do not like people changing what I say to suit their way of thinking. — Sir2u
Especial when they are people who love to point out others mistakes while making their own. — Sir2u
Does Taking pills to be health instead of eating a bit of meat sound normal to you? — Sir2u
As I stated earlier, it is not about the meat but about the contents of the meat. — Sir2u
This kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral. Why would you want to call someone a freak because they want to live their life properly. — Sir2u
And what great authority do you process to decide just what is necessary and what is not? — Sir2u
Could we see your qualifications on nutritional counseling please? — Sir2u
So you think that it is OK for people to sit around doing nothing but overeating and getting fat? — Sir2u
So you think that dolphins automatically eat every fish they see? Try watching Discovery Channel instead of reading those mediocre books you keep recommending. — Sir2u
A discovery, whether it is cooking meat or riding around in a Peugeot are not part of human evolution. — Sir2u
It should be obvious that that doesn't really clarify anything and still leaves a lot of ambiguity. Healthy according to who? Or according to what criteria? Criteria set by who? Is this an ideal? Whose ideal? — S
First of all, what claim of mine do you call into question? Then we can take it from there. If I think that anything I've claimed requires an authoritative source, I can look into it and get back to you. — S
I like good grammar.
I thought you'd think that that was a mistake.What you highlighted isn't a mistake.
Although it is common to use only one "that" in such sentences. I'm just a bit of a stickler for formality. You'll see the double "that" again up above a few times and in at least one other of my sentences further down. — S
Do you, or do you not, claim that it's necessary to eat a certain amount or a certain type or a certain whatever of meat each day or even at all in order to be healthy? — S
You should also concede for your own fault. But I bet you won't. — S
I think that it's not necessary wrong, and I think that it's wrong to simply assume that it's wrong. — S
You think that Sapiens is mediocre? Have you actually read it? Or are you judging a book by its cover? — S
See, this is where you're showing your ignorance. Please read the book and educate yourself. I purposefully chose the example of a Peugeot, because that's given as an example in the book. — S
We didn't discover Peugeots, obviously. We created them. And that has to do with how we evolved to a stage where we can create fiction. That makes us unique, even among other species under the genus Homo. It's actually an extremely important part of our evolution. — S
I gave the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. — Terrapin Station
I'm not referring to laws/principles. I just explained that to you. — Terrapin Station
You don't think you're defining the law of identity, when indeed you are. — chatterbears
Would you say that thelaw of identity is a particular, found on just one occasion, in one spatio-temporal location, etc.? — Terrapin Station
I told you I understand that already. And to frame your particulars/universals in the axiom context, I'll do it this way.
Universal: An axiom
Particular: the law of noncontradiction — chatterbears
You said it is not a particular, while I say it is. Do we just end the convo there?you don't understand that distinction if you're suggesting that a law or principle, objectively, could be a particular. — Terrapin Station
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.