Yeah, I get your point. MY point is that biology is not always destiny.

:roll:

Sure some women are stronger than some men, but the vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women. — Taneras

That's definitely a malleable physical trait:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/15/todays-men-are-nowhere-near-as-strong-as-their-dads-were-researchers-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0dd4f4c09cf9

Not only are men becoming wimpier:
"To look at it another way: In 1985, the typical 30-to-34-year-old man could squeeze your hand with 31 pounds more force than the typical woman of that age could. But today, older millennial men and women are roughly equal when it comes to grip strength."

A) I was politely responding to some points you made first. In this thread. Thus opening the conversation.

B) You decided to first make your counterpoint, and then rudely say that discussing anything with anyone who doesn't believe exactly your version of things is not worth talking to. Seems like you're the one who needs to get over yourself.

Sorry but I find this whole topic boring, I also wouldn't discuss it with someone who agreed with me. — Judaka

Then why are you wasting our time commenting? Troll.

Your position could be 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 95% or 100% of gender is socially and culturally constructed. There's a LOT of room for interpretation but once you start going above 50%, to me, that's just not really worth debating. Either you're focusing too much on superficial things like toys, dresses, colours and other crap like that or you've been educated by philosophers about science and that's just a really bad idea. — Judaka

You clearly haven't been educated by good philosophers at all, or you'd know not to open a conversation where you're going to dismiss a whole leg of the argument out of hand with no real logical/valid reason.

I would say that's extremely controversial, actually. And it's easy to point into the abstract nebula, but how about some examples?

They're not though. Gender roles are key to gender.

Sex is independent of all that though.

Well, "absurd" isn't really a counterargument. I'll be here when you've got some explanation as to what gender "feels" like rather than just a knee-jerk dismissal.

No duh. And they are associated with gender roles. Hence the entire case for calling gender a social construction and sex biological.

I already gave some examples. Others might be who cooks, cleans, and likes pretty things versus watching sports, working outside of the house, etc.

Gender doesn't feeeeel like anything. And neither does biological sex. That's like describing what it feels like to have blue eyes or brown hair or ten fingers.

:lol:



Gender is by definition a social construct. Sex is biology. There may be some behaviors that are related to sex, but by and large everything we socially identify with gender is just constructed. Like skirts. Men in other cultures anf throughout history have worn skirts (kilts, togas, etc.). The color for boys used to be pink/red cause it symbolizes power and strength.

The social experiment you link to is interesting, but it's just one case and thus not really proof of anything. It's impossible to tell what of his problems were due to the experiment itself, the tension of the experiment in relation to societal expectations, or just his own brain malfunctioning indepently of all that.

It does kind of exist: you can take MIT classes for free online. Youtube has thousands of lecture videos. The library is stuffed with books. If you want to learn on your own time, just do it.

Teaching, though, in person, requires a lot of work, time, and energy. It's unrealistic to expect us to be sitting there waiting for your beck and call.

And most people don't have the drive to just learn rigorously on their own. They might learn a little here and a little there, but without a teacher most people are too lazy to learn the less interesting, but equally important things.

My stance ties into your point #3:

Billionaires are antithetical to a democracy.
In capitalism, money is power, and having a class of people who hold that much power just makes us an oligarchy/aristocracy.

Perhaps if you could change the government to be immune from the power of the private dollar, AND even the poorest in our country were well off, then I could imagine allowing some people to amass wealth for luxuries. Barring that, being a billionaire is immoral and undemocratic.

It's further complicated by the fact that the % Czech population in the US is somewhat irrelevant to the likelihood of a Czech winning the lottery. It doesn't tell us what percentage of lottery ticket buyers are Czech. It's possible that it's a similar stat, but it's also possible that Czechs buy or don't buy lottery tickets at greater rates than other parts of the population.

Also, it's a fallacy of division: attributing to a part what is true of the whole.

For the entire Czech population the chances may be X to win, and for all the winners there may be x percent chance of being Czech, but you can't attribute those statistics to any individual participant. Like, if I won, my chances of being Czech are nil, because I'm not Czech. The chances of me winning the lottery are also nil (even if I were Czech), because I don't play.

I don't think that's an apt comparison. In one scenario you're being forced to choose between two active actions. In the other, you'd be choosing mass killing instead of a countless number of other possible solutions, all in order to potentially avoid potential further deaths that would not directly be caused by your inaction.

Also, I will say that traits like human intellect and potential can be tie-breakers in extreme situations. Like, if you have to choose between killing a criminal nazi and a law-abiding peacenik, you should choose the former. But that doesn't mean you should go out and kill criminal nazis under normal conditions.

Let me know when you've got substantive questions/comments tha show you've bothered reading the text.
Or don't.
But I will not respond to further comments that don't.

Then how do we know them? How can they be thought? — Mww

By definition, a priori are things we just know "before." Which is where it gets iffy. Kant, for instance, thinks we're just imbued with this knowledge. I'm on the fence. I think we may be programmed genetically to view things in a certain way, but then again, the aspects of the way the world is have shaped our genes, so it makes sense to say that our perceptions of the world, and the way we interpret it are a reflection of the way the world really is.

Like we come with the ability to see. And the reason we evolved such things as eyes is because light exists. If it didn't exist, the random mutations leading to the first eye-like things would have disappeared.

We evolved to think A=A because that's the way it is in the world. There's nothing any of our ancestors encountered that contradicted that.

But this is just my preliminary rumination and I'm not necessarily tied to it.



Spoken like a true constructivist xD
But seriously, no they're not at all the same. They entertain diametrically opposed worldviews.

So we can't have a discussion about the question I asked? — Terrapin Station

Have you ever been in a class or had a conversation with people about a book or paper and one person never bothered to read the material but still wants to talk? If so, then you know that it's just silly, because either they say things only tangentially related, or make points that would have been answered if they'd read the text. It derails the conversation and wastes everyone's time.

So, I'm not interested in having a conversation with you that you are unprepared for, but you're welcome to have your conversation elsewhere. You can always create your own discussion.

All purely deductive systems are tautological, they are true because they are true. — Echarmion

I don't think the foundational elements of logic are tautological as much as they are self-evident to the point that you cannot rationally seriously doubt them. That is because in order to interrogate them, you must use them.

Don’t we have to construct our mathematical and logical forms a priori? — Mww

Well, a priori forms/ideas are by definition not constructed.

But I suppose there is some point at which the realist will find one ontological proof of logic in the way s/he finds things in the world. A cannot be ~A, and that is based on both our entire way of understanding the world, as well as on the world itself, in which you cannot find a single example of A being ~A.

You can't explain anything to a devout skeptic.... they're annoying that way.

They're like small children who continually as "why? why? why?" no matter how detailed you explain something to them until you just say "because!" (to which they still ask "why?").

In other words, the skeptic could only possibly be satisfied with an answer to even the simplest of questions if you could present him simultaneously with an explanation of all that is, was, and will be in the totality of the universe.

As far as “truth” is concerned, however, I suppose the constructivist holds sway, insofar as the human cognitive system is predicated on a network of interwoven faculties, the sole employment of which is to construct relations between the objects of those faculties. Theoretically, that is; no one really has the correct answers. — Mww

I think some constructivism, or at least fallibalism is warranted with things like perceptions/knowledge of the experiential world. I'm not sure it makes as much sense when we talk about basic math or logic. A =/= ~A is a pretty straightforward truth.

I wonder whether radical constructivism holds that there are a priori principles built into the human mind? Are e.g. time and space, as ordering principles, built from comparing experiences? — Echarmion

Yes, I think the constructivist maintain that there are priori principles built into the human mind. That's what v.G. means when he talks about the apparent structured nature of the world and then explains that it appears so because we are predisposed to construct it as such.

Well, the constructivist stance is that there is no objective truth outside the self, and the realist says there is. So as far as that goes, yes you have to choose one. It's A or not A.

Seems to me the constructivist has to deny all of realism, but the realist can allow some constructivism. So, the realist posits there is an objective reality, but humans may have imperfect access to it.



Like I said, you need to read the article.

I would do something relatively interesting and that is easy enough to comprehend (at least, they seem so when you don't dig too deep).

My first philosophy classes in college were The Nature of Human Nature and Art and Philosophy. You can find all sorts of things written about either of these, seek out some authors who appeal to you, and almost anyone should be able to relate to the subject matter.

Or, my personal favorite: the trolley problem. Simple concept with HUGE potential for philosophical analysis and discussion.
In case you don't know what it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

From a practical standpoint, finding milk from animals that aren't going to be slaughtered is not easy. — Nils Loc

You're right that these kinds of animal products could no longer be part of our daily, mass consumptive diets. It would become a luxury good from a small handful of farms and perhaps some backyard endeavors. Which is one of the reasons I personally find it easier to forego all of it together.

Well... the data says you're wrong. But I guess you'd rather argue by your intuition?

I think that's a pointless exercise though. Honest intellectualism/philosophy should be willing to change positions when confronted with evidence that doesn't support it.

I think your best bet for justifying veganism or vegetarianism is to look elsewhere. — Bitter Crank

It's not plant-consumption that needs a justification.

I also think the passages you quote all confirm my original post: ideally human should avoid killing animals. God lets us do it, for now, but it's not the perfect scenario or end goal. And if things in Eden/Heaven are the ideal, seems on earth people should strive toward that.

(I should note, I'm an atheist and only contributing as a mildly interesting thought-experiment.)

Christianity ideally ties one to vegetarianism, with eggs and milk coming from humanely raised animals who aren't slaughtered after giving up their usefulness. If you look at most interpretations of what Eden or Heaven are like, that's what they depict as well. Lion lying with the lamb and rivers of milk and honey and all that.

One good example is Milton's Paradise Lost. Adam and Eve are vegetarians before the Fall.

Of course we have a reward system in place to but punishment is more effective in imparting moral lessons. — TheMadFool

It is? That's news to me. In my psych classes we learned the opposite:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/family-affair/200809/rewards-are-better-punishment-here-s-why

Punishment is just easier to consistently dole out/we're more inclined to react to bad behavior.

Uh oh! We got an international criminal in our midst :razz:

It's hard to say for sure, but I think they seem selfish at times only because they are reliant on adults' lives revolving around them to some extent.

I did read though that around 6 months of age babies can follow adult gazes, which leads most psychologists to reason that at this point they definitely have some awareness of your awareness. And my own little one was giving kisses when someone was sad or hurt as early as 10 months. (Personal anecdote, I know, but I gotta brag.)

But, yeah, underdeveloped and inconsistent for sure.

Do you have any sources for those claims, or are you just speculating?

Agreed. Though impatience is different than selfishness.

They tend to be selfish little people. — schopenhauer1

That is such an oversimplification.
They can be incredibly empathetic and even more so than adults.

They are people, and as such are complex individuals with unique ideas and tendencies.

Adults committing crimes are not innocent in that we attribute to them the ability to understand consequences. We discipline children to teach them what consequences are.

Yes, in theory ignorance of the law is not protection thereof. However, we do allow for extenuating circumstances. (The legal system is flawed, biased, and corrupt, so I'm talking ideally here.) If it's clear from someone's upbringing that they were never taught right and wrong, that gets taken into account. If we found a person raised by wolves and upin integration in society he committed a crime, the courts would likely be lenient.

Personally, I don't agree with punishment for either population, but I do think logical consequences need to be enforced. If you hurt people, you need to be kept away from people and rehabilitated. If you spend all your allowance on sweets, you'll miss going to the movies with your friends.

In the case of adults, it's for society's good that we need to take action.

In the case of children, it's for their own good. If they never learn the simple, easy consequences at home, when they grow up and make choices, they might make poor ones with worse, harsher consequences.

It's not the same kind of punishment, though. We lock up criminals in hopes that they will no longer be able to harm others.

The best kind of discipline for children involves some sort of logical consequence. Like, if you keep using your stuffed bear to hit your sister, I'm taking your stuffed bear away. I had a friend whose daughter (13) basically refused to remember to turn the lights off in her room when she wasn't there, so the friend took all the light bulbs out for a while.

The desired result is the same: we want criminals and children to behave in accordance with our rules.

Also, I think your description of children as innocent is accurate, but a bit incomplete. They are innocent in the sense that they are not morally responsible for their actions, but they do come pre-programmed to test boundaries and experiment just what will happen if rules are broken.

Nice attempt to save face on your way out, but it's pretty obvious you just don't know how to defend your position in light of the facts.

If by ignoring you mean that the ignoree had sent messages or called with no reply, that's just rude. I do think rudeness falls into a certain ethical category. It hurts other people's feelings, and that's wrong.

BUT, no one is indebted to be your friend/romantic partner/spouse just cause they hung out a few times with you. They tried it out, they realized that it wasn't clicking on some level, so they extricated themselves. That's normal and acceptable.

There are over 7 billion people on the planet. If even 1% of them match my friend criteria, I still don't have the time or capacity to be friends with them all.

The thing is, you can't prove being a vegan causes less suffering, whatever proof you come up with will be based on some untestable belief. — leo

Neuroscience is untestable? Nope.

All the science, all the evidence, all the actual tested research points to the ability to suffer in mammals, reptiles, and birds. And it does not point to plants suffering.

I'm sorry you don't want to believe it, but your refusal to believe the facts according to our best current understanding of the world is about as rational as questioning that the earth is a sphere, or that Ancient Egypt existed.

Vegans = no problem
Proselytising 'ethical' vegans on philosophy forums = Mormon missionaries — Txastopher

And here we see your inability to think clearly about the issue. This whole forum is designed to discuss ideas. This thread is discussing ideas related to diet and morality. Saying that my position is any more proselytizing than yours or any other position about morality on this entire forum is just stupid and biased.

It's just a way to dismiss the argument out of hand. And this stubborn attitude can be shown here:

Look, if you want to base your diet on an intuitive anthropomorphic ranking of suffering, go ahead — Txastopher

I listed much more than intuition as evidence.

But I'm afraid it's clear you don't WANT the conclusion to be true, so you'll say just about anything to make yourself believe that it isn't.

What we should be saying is that causing suffering may be wrong. — Txastopher

Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong.
Killing animals is unnecessary and does cause suffering.
Killing plants might cause suffering, but is necessary.

Unfortunately, no non-anthropocentric ranking of suffering exists. — Txastopher

We must of course evaluate everything from a human perspective. That does not mean, however, that our conclusions are wrong. Scientific inquiry, evolutionary theory, and just being an observer of animal behavior lead to the conclusion that animals can suffer.

Science: we know what mechanisms in the human body cause suffering and pleasure. We know that animals like mammals, birds, and reptiles share these same mechanisms.

Evolutionary theory: traits found in one species will exist in other species, especially if they have evolutionary advantages. The advantages of feeling pain and pleasure are pretty obvious.

Observation: if I kick my dog (Hypothetical. I would never actually kick my dog. She's a sweetums.) she will yelp and cower and run away. If I kick a pig, it will squeal and try to either get away or might try to bite back.

All this taken together leads to the pretty darn obvious conclusion that animals suffer. We have no such comprehensive evidence available where plants are concerned.
I would like to add, that it is only when veganism is brought up that anyone ever doubts kicking a dog or other animal is worse than picking a daisy.

I can forgive myself for not being able to photosynthesise and find no need to reject entire taxa as potential sustenance. — Txastopher

Vegans photosynthesize? What? OMG, what is this amazing superpower I've suddenly acquired without even noticing?!
(Fun fact, we do actually photosynthesize vitamin D.)