Its a psychological term, holding two opposing ideas to be true at the same time, or consistently acting contrary to one or more beliefs.
Explainable given sufficient knowledge yes, of course.

Its not my spectrum, but I find it difficult to imagine the specific traits mentioned would “phase out” at some point along the spectrum Considering how specific they are to human beings. Aliens advanced enough might have a different set of traits they use to create a spectrum then we could very easily not be in it but I think the threshold that qualifies humans would be maintained on the offered spectrum.

They are only opposed opinions if one fails to recognise the distinction between where various animals (including humans) sit on the spectrum of certain mental capacities. My understanding is that Graeme is positing that the threshold on that spectrum can exclude many animals that the standard vegan does not based on certain mental traits/capacities.
Its not contradictory because he is not including all animals when he says opposing things, he is referencing two different categories. (Created by the distinction made based in mental capacities/traits.)
In order to show he is being contradictory, you would first have to show that the distinction he makes is not valid. No one has, and I don’t see how it can be done. Id like to though, just as soon as everyones on the same page about what he’s actually saying.

Nope, you still fail to address my concerns. Both of you have. It's a pretty simple request that someone be clear about their metaethics before continuing a conversation about applied ethics... His refusal to answer and his ungallant retort to this request were the end of the actual discussion. Everything else since has just been passing time amusingly. — Artemis

Well he can answer what he likes, Im specifically addressing you and you are specifically ignoring it while using your incorrect initial assessment of what someone else said to aid in your continued evasion.

Since you, however, seem to have nothing yourself to add to the discussion, I will leave the two of you to your unfolding love story. — Artemis

Just because its not swearing or direct insult doesnt make it any less childish or uncivil. Im being earnest with you here.
I think you’ve misunderstood what that guy meant, and you wont even acknowledge the possibility enough to deny it. You just keep making the same demand and ignoring everything else like its a matter of principal. Is it? Do you have some rule about engaging with online criticism because the internet is such a cesspool? Is that it?

Its cognitive dissonance. Human behaviour doesnt always make sense unfortunately.

You are evading madame, not me. You arent even paying attention to what Im writing, i specifically addressed this sort of response by expressing exactly why that particular query of yours isnt being answered.
One, its already been laid out. You failed to understand the point made and offered an invalid criticism (contradiction where there is none.)
Two, you have ignored being called out on your mistake. Even if I am wrong with those criticisms you should still address them by showing how they are wrong instead of just ignoring them. Ignoring them is what makes you in fact the one who is evading. If its a rise above it/high ground thing, please understand Im not trying to insult you or trying to hurt you. Im just noticing errors that are preventing the discussion from moving forward.

You say waiting, I say ignoring valid criticisms. You will need to address those first because as it stands your attitude and mistakes mentioned above are preventing you from being “enlightened”. If you do not address the criticisms, I have no reason to believe you wouldn't just commit them again and thereby waste my time in explaining anything. Also, its already been laid out, if there is something specific you need clarification on then tell me what it is and Ill try and explain it.
Im just trying to get you to be more charitable and open minded because I was enjoying watching the exchange and would like to see it continue (if you remember, you ejected from the discussion not too many posts ago)

Not a friend, Ive only interacted with him on this thread as far as I know and I wouldn't be defending anyone based on friendship anyway. This is an example of whats been mentioned to you...applying a little charity goes a long way. You assume that I didnt have a good reason to chime in...try assuming that I do.
Further, and Im not trying to be rude here, you didnt really point anything out about incongruity. You think you did, but you missed the point of what was being said and ended up (unintentionally it seems) straw manning him. He hasnt addressed what you said because its incorrect. There is no contradiction. You should focus on what people are trying to communicate rather than cherry picking phrases or words to leverage a dismissal of what they are saying.
I mean, just look at how you ended your last post...suggesting that a blind test would expose low motives or some other invalid thinking. (Not sure if youre trying to imply bias or dishonesty or what).
You have no real basis for thinking that, and its the sort of thing that makes it difficult to have a real discussion. Are you interested in discussion or playing “gotchya!”?

Well I said it was no more or less arbitrary. I just meant to put them on the same footing.

There must be some term for what your saying here. Its a vegan ethic applied to a more narrow spectrum of animal based on mental capacity. It seems no more or less arbitrary than normal veganism.
Are you the first Neo-Vegan?

Its true, it does seem like youre deliberately misunderstanding him. It does come across as strange that the sentence you referenced with quotes needed to be explained. Just because you feel what he expressed is unpleasant doesnt mean its not true.
Its not like he said anything more out of line than you have, careful of the glass house.
I was enjoying the exchange, i think he posed an interesting challenge to the vegan pov. So far you havent answered it, I think you need to read his points more charitably, and you will see he’s making a fair, logical point.

I probably would have picked an argument other than "medicine". What's the point in living longer in a world you loathe? — JoeyB

Good point.

Well what exactly do you loathe about it? Is there anything you like about it? (Medicine is pretty swell).

It wouldn’t. That isn’t scientific. — I like sushi

Of course it is. Science uses its method to determine the way things work. If the way things work is prayer or magic then thats what science will be about.

Besides the POINT of this is to try an appreciate what the world looks/feels like to those who we may consider blinkered/delusional/naive. — I like sushi

Sure, I'm just pointing out the incoherency in your thought experiment. (You asked to hear about flaws). If what you want is to address is differing perspectives, your work is already done for you with the simple analogy you yourself used. In another person shoes. That addresses what you want without being incoherent.

Anyway, I guess the main consequence of such a reversal would be blown minds. I think many scientific based people would have a period of hard adjustment but would in time be able to adjust to the new facts. I also think some scientific based people would have various mental break down. Like when Neo is “gonna pop” after learning reality was a lie.

I hope you remember your past thought experiments and my willingness to play along because this time I dont think you thought experiment makes sense. Not because its impossible, but because it contains a contradiction.
You cannot follow the scientific method properly and dogmatically cling to its its previous conclusions. If everything changed (reversed really) then science would change with it. If prayer instead of medicine worked for sickness and injury, then the scientific method (followed properly) would adopt prayer as the scientific facts instead of medicine.
So if everything flip flopped like you describe and there were people who clung to previous scientific facts/foundations rather than accept the new facts (prayer and whatever religious stuff is now true) then they arent scientists, nor are they practicing science.
Just to be clear, Im not objecting to the impossibility of everything reversing, Im participating in the thought experiment in good faith, Im just not conceding that in that scenario science would become its own antithesis. If you want to include science becoming its own antithesis in the parameters of your thought experiment then I dont think your thought experiment is coherent.

Throughout this discussion I've been making the point that animals don't have as much moral worth as humans. I don't see how I'm being contradictory. — BitconnectCarlos

I dont think youre really contradicting yourself, but a vegan can make a strong point about using a scale of moral worth simply by asking about where different kinds of humans fit on that scale. If some humans have lesser moral worth is it ok to eat them? (Barring any health issues concerning cannibalism of course.)

Ok but how was his post not amusing? Stinky pervert? Its just so...harmlessly juvenile. I laughed.

We are in agreement, I think your stance is consistent.

↪DingoJones I see what you are driving at. So if we are to use pain and suffering as our moral benchmark, some organisms may be excluded from consideration. For example, if we are confident that wheat doesn't feel pain, we have no need to concern ourselves with any moral duty to any particular wheat plant (we might however, on a different basis, have some concerns about a wider ethical concern relating to the growing of wheat as a commodity). Similarly, the same should apply to any animal that does not experience pain (if we are sufficiently confident that an oyster for example isn't likely to suffer any more than a stalk of wheat). — Graeme M

Yes, as you say you see what Im getting at. I think we might disagree about what levels of pain and suffering matters though...i wouldnt say you couldn't eat anything that feels any pain or suffering. I would say it depends on how and what capacity the animal has for pain, suffering and/or consciousness compared to humans. (Presumably there are attributes to human suffering that make it wrong that we would want to see present in the animal we shouldn't eat (ethically speaking, and with suffering as our metric).

This seems to point in the right direction. Broadly then we could see an endorsement for vegan ethics in regard to animal farming - that is, those animals which can feel pain and suffer would be those we'd owe the greater duty to. Wouldn't the typical farmed animal fall within that scope? And as I mentioned earlier, we have some reasonably sound empirical grounds for excluding insects from that duty which would free us from particular concerns about insects as individuals. That would mean we can happily eat insects and kill them in crop farming (with the same caveat as earlier - for example, a broader ethical duty to insects as species and members of the ecosystem). — Graeme M

Well I wouldnt qualify the capacity for pain and suffering alone. I think it needs to be an experience of suffering/pain of a certain kind, a kind that fits the same criteria for why pain and suffering is wrong to inflict on humans.
Aside from that consideration, yes I think ethics (with preventing suffering as the moral metric) would demand we be more careful about what animals we eat.

Just as an aside, is there a particular objection to folk seeking the higher moral ground? I'm not sure I'd advocate for chasing the lower moral ground!! — Graeme M

No, my issue is with claiming the moral high ground when you dont actually have it. (And by “you” i mean people in general, not you personally).
Plus, and again not directed at you personally, claiming the moral high ground is far too often the cry of the self righteous.
Anyway, Im glad I was eventually able to articulate my view more clearly. You’ve given me food for thought so Im going to do some thinking on what youve said.

I would guess we have reached an impasse, as your responses seems scarce on substance to me as well.

This sounds very vague. What meats specifically? What vegetarians specifically? I've been finding it incredibly difficult to actually apply your criticisms. — InPitzotl

I feel like ive answered this...the meat that meets the thresholds of suffering being used to decide what's ok to eat and whats isnt. The vegetarians im referencing have been the ones that dont eat meat because it causes suffering to the animal providing the meat and ones that think hey have the moral high ground for not eating meat. (Two different references for two different points but those are the two types of vegetarians Ive referred too.

Well I wouldnt agree with that no, because I wouldnt use suffering as the metric.
If you do use suffering as a metric then I think there is a spectrum and not a simple meat or veggie dichotomy. To be consistent, I think rather than being measured by whether its an animal or a veggie you would have to measure whats ethical to eat by the mental capacities of each thing you consider eating. I dont think that all meat would be entirely excluded in that calculus, we would find some meats (maybe alot) that would be ok to eat. It would depend on what “ability to experience suffering” standards are being used but the calculus is the same regardless and thats why I dont think vegans or vegetarians have the moral high ground they think they do.

I'm curious, what metric would you propose? Mind you, the original discussion was in relation to vegetarianism, extended to veganism. Neither is essentially about animal rights as far as I know. — Graeme M

Yes, this would be shifting the discussion. Thats why im arguing from the same basis of using suffering as the metric, I recognise my own views on ethics/morality to be idiosyncratic and unless the discussion is about moral epistemology it probably wouldnt be helpful to insert my own views.
To answer your question, Im more of social contract theory guy and dint see much merit to principal based ethics or avoiding suffering as the basis for morals/ethics.

It's not an inconsistency unless one believes that beetles and cows are capable of equal amounts of suffering, or that their lives somehow matter equally much. You don't believe it, animal rights people don't believe it, so no one's being inconsistent. — zookeeper

I think this is pertinent to both of our discussions. I think that deciding bugs dont count is the same as deciding certain animals dont count. Graeme mentioned that he had empirical reasons, and I would agree there is probably some sort of spectrum to consciousness and levels of suffering. However, I dont think that all the animals vegans/animal rights folk believe shouldnt be eaten are going to be shown by science to have anything like the human ethics or suffering. I think some will, and based on suffering as a metric we shouldn't (ethically speaking) eat those animals. That would be consistent with the premiss of suffering as the metric.

So just to clarify: you personally value the lives and suffering of, say, a beetle and a cow equally (or, alternatively, that you believe a beetle and cow are equally capable of suffering)? That your ethical judgement if you see someone squash a cat with a bat is more or less the same as when you see someone squash a mosquito? — zookeeper

I was pointing out an inconsistency that arises from the vegan/animal rights premiss of reducing suffering. Reducing suffering is not my own basis of morality, nor a metric I would use to defend/attack animal rights.

My concern isnt to reduce suffering, thats the concern of vegans/animal rights folk. Im talking about in what way operating from that stance leads to inconsistency.
Anyway, once you decide insects arent to be included as suffering creatures you are making the same calculus as a meat eater, arbitrarily drawing the line at insects the way a meat eater might draw the line at dogs, or monkeys. Thats problematic for what I hope are obvious reasons.

You will need to offer some actual numbers to back up your claim that the loss of animals from the proportion of crops to replace meat is astronomical when compared to the number of animals we kill/catch each year. I agree that generally speaking, cattle grazing on open range is relatively harm free and can be ecologically preferable, but we aren't talking about the impact of ALL crops grown for food versus just range grazed cattle. See my comment above. — Graeme M

Well in your first post you excluded insects. I was including them in my measure of individual lives.

I understand, Im familiar with vegan arguments.

That doesn't make any sense. How does plant-eating cause more suffering than meat-eating? It causes some, obviously, but if you make an esoteric claim such that it causes more suffering or suffering to more individual creatures, then surely you have some kind of rationale for that. What is it? — zookeeper

I was referring to the amount of lives lost/suffering. Insects and rodents are more enumerate than farm animals. Insects and rodents can co-exist with animal farm fields. Thats not the case with crops, the insects and rodents are wiped out or displaced (and most die). So many many times more individual lives and suffering result from a crop field. Ergo, if we are measuring the suffering of individuals we see there are more individuals suffering from the footprint of the crops than the animal farming. By a landslide really.
Just because you don’t understand something doesnt mean it doesnt make sense. I dont mind clarifying, I simply thought you understood the huge numbers difference in individual lives. My mistake, hopefully its clear what I meant now.

He is not saying they were rights, he is saying they existed. The question is are they “rights”?
If we are talking about rights not granted by other men...I think I agree with what others about enforcement. Might makes rights. If you can take something you have the right to it. indeed thats the very reason for laws and rights. Your quote above expresses that nicely.

But practically no one ever suggests such a thing. The alternative to suffering of farmed animals is obviously not freeing them to starve in the wild, but not breeding them in the first place. That's a basic false dichotomy. — zookeeper

I was comparing the suffering experienced by farm animals to the suffering of animals in the wild. Thats not a dichotomy, its a comparison. Not breeding them in the first place is a fair point but doesnt address what to do with the ones that have been bred already.
Also, regardless of what we do with the current stock of farm animals doesnt change the fact that animals, anywhere, live harsh and short lives that end in various horrific deaths. Thats the point I was making. There is no significant ethical difference between the suffering of farm animals and the suffering of animals in general. It IS strange, as under your paradigm one should be out rescuing animals from the wild as well.

Sure, production of plants results in animals dying en masse. No one seriously thinks that's not the case. How or why would that eliminate the moral high ground? — zookeeper

Well isnt preventing suffering what grants the moral highground? Suffering isnt being prevented by not eating meat, in fact id say that it causes more suffering just by the sheer numbers of individual suffering (unless you want to claim those lives are less significant somehow, but again that is the exact same calculus a meat eater is making).

Also, you said “practically no one ever”...aren’t there organisations like PETA that rescue animals and release them back to the wild? Maybe Im assuming “rescue” to mean release to the wild, but Im sure i e heard of animals being rescued from factory farms and such.

Well it seems strange to save an animal from suffering by ensuring it will suffer. Frying pan or fire? And thats besides the fact that most animals cannot make an ethical social contract. Its protecting an animal from suffering and death by sending it off to..suffering and death. (Presumably the alternative to being a farm animal is living in the wild). That doesnt seem odd to you?
Take vegans and vegetarians. In order to grow the food they eat, animals still have to be slaughtered en masse. Those fields of fruits or veggies result in countless deaths and plenty of suffering from displacement and starvation. If you want to say rodents and insects dont count or count less, then you are making the exact same calculus a meat eater is making. The moral high ground held by vegans or vegetarians is an illusion.

No. By that definition I can’t see how drugs are “bad”. If I said drugs are bad I would also be saying medicine that has a physiological effect is bad. I dont see how anyone could reasonably say that.

I think of ethics as a social contract for the most part, so with animals their are obvious limits to what kind of social contract you can make with them. I think most ethics are beyond most animals and so its not going to be an ethical social contract.
Ive always found it strange when animal rights people talk about the suffering from farms and human consumption of meat. Do they not realise the suffering that exists in the natural world? Its a non-stop horror show of pain, suffering and death. Mothers eat their babies, predators eating prey alive, agonising poisons and neurotoxins that paralyse followed by being eaten alive, females killing mates after copulation...ever see a cat play with its prey? Its torture for fun, whenever they can. Rape, infanticide, homicide, torture...all par for the course. Horrific crimes by human standards and thats the point, by human standards. Ethics. Whatever animals got going on it aint ethics, so what kind of social contract can you make with them? Well they all seem to have a solid grasp on the food chain...
Having said that, science has shown a pretty wide spectrum of cognition in animals in the last decade or two. I think its pretty clear some animals are capable of an ethical social contract more advanced than us eating them. Although dolphins are an animal noted for it high or human like intelligence and I read rape is very common amongst dolphins so maybe ethics really are a uniquely human thing. Its hard to tell.

You cant have looked very hard. It was the first headline that came up from the BBC when I just did it.
Benkei made a good point, that the actual articles dint say what the headlines say, clickbait. I think thats true, I just think that those clickbait headlines are very damaging. Thats maybe more about the state of journalism, but I dont think that excuses it.

Well I dont have as cavalier an attitude about headlines that mislead like that as you do. I think its important not to do that, especially concerning Trump. As I said, it plays into his hands.

Im talking about a specific type of Trump critic, the ones that lie or distort what Trump says or does because its easy and no one will call them on it cuz its Trump. Not everyone who is anti-Trump does this, not even everyone who has TDS does this.
The most recent example is journalists who wrote that Trump told people to drink or inject bleach in that press conference and people did and its all Trumps fault. Thats just not true, what he actually did was make an idiotic, off the top of his head comment about a potential treatment. He displayed ignorance, but anyone who heard that and thought it was a good idea to inject or drink bleach is an idiot and its not Trumps fault.
On the other side, im sure you can think of your own examples of Fox news or Republican politicians lying and distorting for Trumps benefit. The “inject bleach” example above works on this end too. Any Fox reporter or right wing personality that repeated the “it was sarcasm” excuse (and believes it) is not thinking clearly. TDS...
Trump is the divider in chief, and people on the left play right into his hands when they compare him to Hitler or bend over backwards to interpret anything he says or does in the worst possible way. Then he has fake news to point to when he wants to distract or obscure the actual terrible things he says and does.

You don't see how evidence would support your views or argument, seriously? — praxis

No, I said I dont think an example would make it any more clear. I think it would muddy the waters in fact, as ive also already explained.

You're not arguing about Trump's character. You're arguing about the character of others in relation to TDS in some way that is unclear to me. If you have no interest in making it clearer to me that's your choice. — praxis

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt here. So you are specifically talking about this bit, just for clarities sake:

“They have a particular taste for abusing an easy target, like a bully who picks on the unpopular kid so he can satisfy his weak character while still maintaining social favour with the other kids.
— DingoJones“

?

Dont see how an example would be any more clear. I think you want an example so you can argue about the example instead of what im actually talking about. You want to argue about Trumps character. If thats the case, just say so. It will be a short discussion.

One of the three discussions I started on this forum was about TDS. I think it's simply a method to invalidate any criticism of Trump, in the minds of his supporters. I don't recall it ever being applied to an individual. I suppose that's because if it were applied to an instance of it then an actual criticism would need to be taken into consideration. — praxis

We’ve has that discussion already. Led nowhere.

Were you aiming at a fictitious person then? — praxis

Already explained. You must have missed it. (Not that I believe this is an honest question.)