1401

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck

« on: September 09, 2021, 02:24:25 PM »

Other factors always exist - they must, by definition, for a person who believes that human and animal lives are of equal value.

In real life they do, obviously. The point of a thought experiment is to make you think and examine your views.
You walk past a burning building, you know there's a human and an animal inside but you can only save one.
Which do you choose?
If you truly believe animal and human life is equivalent then it's flip a coin, or as you said it's unanswerable.
Or you might think "well if it's a human and and ant then clearly the human"
Or "Well if it's <pick human here> and a <pick species here> then..." - like all thought experiments you get to fill in the blanks a bit.
Your criticisms of the thought experiment are the exact point of it.

you chose to interpret the lack of a response as a result you've found convenient.

I thought it was interesting that she didn't answer. You answered.
And you did so in a way which makes me think you do believe what you claim.
She didn't. I haven't explored that further with her, it feels like more of a longer face to face conversation and I don't see her often.

Yes, suicide is a sin, and thanks to Judeo-Christian values, we further destroyed the lives of those who felt they had already lost everything by throwing them in jail.

I'd slightly dispute that a Christian would advocate suicide attempt being punishable by jail time, or punishable at all actually.
Lots of things are sinful but not illegal.

when people tell you they believe otherwise, you tell them that they're lying.

What? I haven't told anyone that. You are the second person who responded to my thought experiment, I've responded by saying that your response checks out with your claimed beliefs. My friend didn't answer and I didn't tell her anything. I have privately inferred the reason why she didn't answer but I certainly haven't called her a liar and if the chase arose I'd be willing to explore the whole topic with her further.

Your suggestion was that this belief is not only unpopular, but that it's complete tosh that nobody actually holds.

I'd suggest that few people hold that belief, I provided a link above (in an edit, so you may have missed it) which backs that up. And actually suggests that it's a learned attitude. But even if that's true, that research shows that it is the prevailing view amongst adults.

An alternative thought: people value life equally, but that value is overall pretty low, in isolation. That's why other factors take precedence without fail

I don't think that's what the research I've linked to indicates.

1402

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck

« on: September 09, 2021, 01:13:36 PM »

My assertion is that many, if not most, people would save the human despite viewing the two lives as equally valuable. You propose that this is a contradiction. I'm currently explaining to you why it isn't.

Yes, but your mansplanation involves changing my thought experiment to one where other factors exist.
Choose between your mum or someone who irritates you.
Choose between someone terrible (he is) and a cute kitten.
You could do that endlessly. Do you save a child or an elderly person who has had a long and rich life?
Do you save Jimmy Saville or Lassie?
Do you save an ant or a dog?

My thought experiment was deliberately intended to strip away all that and get my friend to think about whether they really view human and animal life as equivalent.

It is possible, and indeed likely, to devise a situation in which two things have the same value, and yet one is reliably chosen.

Yes. But as I've said you were talking about monetary value, which is a fairly reasonable approximation for value of objects, I guess. Valuation of life is more abstract. And you deliberately set up the situation where my need for one of those things was greater than the other. Again, I want to strip away all that.

Many societies still kill humans they perceive as a threat to society at large, and most did until relatively recently.

In very extreme circumstances and after a due process. We don't just put them down because they're ill or kill them because we want to eat them.

The reasons Dignitas is controversial are extremely well-documented, and you haven't read them. One of the obvious ones is the fear of unscrupulous people pressuring the elderly and vulnerable into committing suicide. In other words, the controversy mostly surrounds the concept of consent, and not the value of life.

There is something in that, but the value of human life is a factor too. There's debate about whether someone should have the right to even decide this. Probably because of us being a Christian country back in the day, I'm pretty sure suicide was illegal at one point because the view was that human life was sacred and shouldn't be extinguished, even by your own hand.
Because we are no longer a Christian country in any meaningful sense the attitudes are changing about whether we should have the right to decide this (I can see arguments both ways, this is another one of those subjects which people on both sides pretend is simple when I actually think it's really complex)

Just generally pretty much everyone has a hierarchy of value they place on different species, with us at the top.

You have yet to demonstrate that.

I don't know how to "demonstrate" it. Can you demonstrate that most people view human and animal life of equal value as you have asserted?
I infer my view from my experience of life. As I said, I'll kill ants with impunity. Bastard things. "Higher" life forms I would be less willing to kill even if they were pests who I didn't want in my house. I'm talking there about my attitudes. But while his is not a topic I discuss regularly with people, I've not done a survey, I don't remember anyone calling me a monster for killing ants. I do see people who are cruel to dogs or cats vilified - remember that cat bin lady. Sheesh, she didn't even really hurt the cat but that was headline news. I Googled it and she was fined £250, had she assaulted a human she would have been charged with a more serious offence.
There are certain Buddhist monks who I think believe that all life is equivalent and don't kill ants, outside of that most people don't regard all life as equivalent.

EDIT: Found this:
https://www.psychnewsdaily.com/children-value-100-dogs-more-than-one-human-adults-value-1-human-more-than-100-dogs-suggesting-our-speciesism-is-learned/

I suspect I'm in the minority there) and most likely wanted to spare herself the headache of someone restating the same non-point over and over while ignoring all arguments against his pre-conceived conclusion.

I'm not ignoring you, I wouldn't have ignored her. I've responded to your points

Also, interestingly: I just told you that I view the question as unanswerable, and you inferred something else entirely from it.

I took that to mean you couldn't choose. You have stated you view animal and human life as equivalent. I took that answer as an affirmation of that. If I'm misunderstood then you're free to clarify.

If you read the news, you won't go a day without reading several stories about the wealthy/powerful egregiously ignoring laws and sufferring little to no consequences.

They may be more immune to the consequences because of their wealth and power, but that doesn't mean they're not subject to the same laws.

1403

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck

« on: September 09, 2021, 10:19:17 AM »

I am talking about an arbitrary animal vs an arbitrary human. Which life is more valuable?

I can either call this question unanswerable or say "neither".

OK, fine. So maybe you really do regard human and animal life as equivalent in value then. I don't, I'd save the human.
My assertion is that most people would do the same.

My needs are clearly a big factor in my decision.

Congratulations - you stated my point, except you're acting as if it was some grand objection.

The objection is you are creating a different scenario where need is a factor. In my scenario it is not.

How do you know what factors do and do not come into your friend's decision process?

I don't, because she declined to answer.

It sounds to me like your analysis lacked nuance, and that you would choose the human because you value them more.

Yes.

How do you go from that to asserting that this is a common belief?

Because we (mostly) eat meat and wear leather and eat eggs and keep animals as pets.
Geronimo the alpaca was famously (why the hell is this headline news?!) put down recently because of the perceived threat of him spreading Bovine TB or something. We don't "put down" humans. Dignitas is now a thing but even then it has to be clear that it's the person's choice and it's still highly controversial. Because most people regard human and animal life differently.
Just generally pretty much everyone has a hierarchy of value they place on different species, with us at the top. Ants are a nuisance and I will happily kill them. Spiders I will generally release in to the wild if I can. We had mice in our place one time and while I wanted them gone I would have been deeply squeamish about dealing with them myself. I don't go out of my way to kill other creatures (apart from ants - seriously, fuck those guys), but if it's an animal vs a child then it's really no contest in terms of who I'd save.

Or to declaring that your friend must believe the same?

She declined to answer my question, I am inferring from that non-response that at some level she believes the same.
I'd be interested to explore the topic more with her if she wanted to at some point.

Our society is dominated by humans (duh), and those who create laws usually create them in their own interest. This is also why the law overwhelmingly favours the wealthy and powerful, pretty much across all nations.

Is that true about the wealthy and powerful? Aren't they subject to the same laws? They might be able to afford better lawyers to get around them.
A factor here is that in the West at least our laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview. And in that we are given "dominion" over the animals and told we can eat them.
Which is a factor in my belief that human life is more valuable than animal life.

1404

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck

« on: September 09, 2021, 09:29:25 AM »

You decided to mansplain some lady's morality to her.

No. I asked her a simple question to get her to think about whether her morality is really what she claims.
(Although she is also a feminist so would enjoy your use of the word "mansplain")

Would you prefer a pointlessly longer list?

No, but some other examples would be good. Your ones so far are not relevant to my thought experiment.
You gave one example of your particular attachment to one human over another.
I'm still a little hurt you like your mum more than me, but you're comparing two humans who you know which is a completely different thought experiment. The fact you know who the two humans are is a factor in your decision. If it's two strangers who you know nothing about then I'd suggest it's flip a coin (assuming the two people are equally easy to save). I wouldn't value any one human life over another if I knew nothing else about the two humans.
And your other example invokes the fact that kittens are cute and Thork is not. But, again, that's a different thought experiment.
I am talking about an arbitrary animal vs an arbitrary human. Which life is more valuable?

Maybe valuable is the wrong word - your example about pizzas and nails is a false equivalence for 2 reasons. Firstly you are talking about monetary value, I am not. Secondly you are creating a scenario in which a big factor is your decision is your immediate need - you set up the thought that I'm hungry. So yeah, I'll pick the pizza. If I'd just had a big meal and had some DIY to finish then I'd pick the nails. My needs are clearly a big factor in my decision. That is not the case in my thought experiment either.

So yeah, you change the thought experiment then the decision becomes different.

Honestly, I might choose the animal. Fuck humans. They're all coarse, and rough, and irritating, and they get everywhere.

A fairly reasonable position, to be fair.
But, in real life, that is not a common view. Cannibalism is frowned upon, eating meat is not.
Killing humans is illegal, killing animals...well, I think you can be done for animal cruelty, but you're not going to be in prison for as long, it at all, for killing a cute kitten than if you killed Thork. The law is an ass. But the reason is that in law animals and humans are not thought to be equivalent. Because, in general, most people don't regard human and animal life as equivalent.

1405

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck

« on: September 09, 2021, 07:37:37 AM »

I specifically said a child or an animal.

This changes nothing. As I said, the factors here are innumerable.

The only other "factor" you have mentioned is the fact you apparently like your mum more than me
The only thing innumerable here is the number of times you'll argue the toss about something when you basically agree with me.

You have to ask yourself whether your interest was to establish the truth, or whether it was to t0tally pwn the veggies with FAX and LOGICKS.

My interest was to test her assertion that she values human and animal life equally.
My thought experiment is a riff on a common one - there's a fire in the middle of the night, you can escape and save one thing from your house, what do you choose?
The entire intent of that experiment it to get someone to think about what thing - it's usually an object - they value most.
My variation of that was to test her assertion that she values human and animal life equally. Which is why I didn't specify which human or animal it was. That eliminates the factors of what you feel about that specific person or how cute you deem that species to be. An arbitrary animal and an arbitrary human. Which do you choose?
The fact she dodged the question is telling. She could have gone into a spiel about "factors" I guess, but she didn't. Because we both know which she would choose and why.

IF she is a vegan because she thinks animal cruelty is a bad thing and we should be kinder to other species then great, I agree with her. I eat meat because it's lovely and I slightly hypocritically overlook the farming practices which allow me to do so. And because God said we could, if you want to go down that road. Or to take a secular view, we are evolved to eat meat. So I think there are good arguments to eat meat. And I think there are good arguments to not do so because of the way we get meat which indisputably causes animals unnecessary suffering.
Just don't give me this guff about how you value animal and human life equally. Because you don't.

1406

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck

« on: September 08, 2021, 09:24:26 PM »

This is why in my hypothetical I made a point of not saying "would you save your child" (she has one, handily) or a family pet.
I specifically said a child or an animal.
She didn't answer. Because we all know the answer.
She'd choose the child. Because at some level she knows that human life is more valuable than animal life.

PS: The kitten, obvs.

1407

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck

« on: September 08, 2021, 06:18:03 PM »

You surely save the thing which you perceive to be of most value, if you can only choose to save one thing.

1408

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck

« on: September 08, 2021, 03:40:19 PM »

I know a fairly preachy vegan. She's not too bad, but she doesn't believe what she says she does.
She put something on FB which I responded to and during the conversation she said that she thought human and animal life had equal value.
Which is bullshit. No-one thinks that.
So I asked her if a house was burning down and a child and pet were in the house who would she ask the firemen to rescue first and she dodged the question. Because of course she did. Obviously she values the human life greater than the animal. Everyone does.
Which isn't to say that farming techniques don't cause animals to suffer unnecessarily because they do. And I don't think they should.
But...sausages and burgers are bloody lovely. Which makes me a bit of a hypocrite but at least I own up to it.

1409

Flat Earth Investigations / Space Geodesy

« on: September 06, 2021, 05:46:47 PM »

Who knew this was a thing? Big fan of Tom Scott. Bumped into him last year in a park in London and told him I was a fan. Anyway, he did a video on this:



Be interested to know if there’s any FE thoughts on this.

1410

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: New Users’ Posting Rights

« on: September 04, 2021, 10:12:20 AM »

They might have someone on the door to try and make sure you’re not just there to trash the place…

You mean like a moderator?

No, I mean like a bouncer.

Moderators in this analogy clean up the place when it has been trashed, and they throw the person out so they can’t do more damage.
Bouncers stop them getting in in the first place.

Whether this place needs the bouncers is the topic of discussion. I don’t have strong opinions either way, but this is a section for suggestions so I suggested it for consideration.

1411

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: New Users’ Posting Rights

« on: September 04, 2021, 06:43:28 AM »

No. The introduce yourself thread, would be like the friendly chat thread where you just break the ice.

Why should anyone be forced to do that? If you went to your local bar, do they ask you to stand on a table and introduce yourself, or can you just go order a beer?

They might have someone on the door to try and make sure you’re not just there to trash the place…

1412

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: New Users’ Posting Rights

« on: September 03, 2021, 10:00:09 AM »

Letting people post in certain sections is similarly risky IMO - for a new legitimate user, this just forces them to make a certain number of posts in a designated zone before they can say what they want to say. We've considered it before, but our worry was that it would encourage people to spam low-quality posts just to access the real forum. Is that really the best thing for newcomers?

I've seen some boards where there's an "introduce yourself" board, a person's first post has to be there before they are released in to the wild (that could happen automatically, or manual review).
Doesn't stop the more determined spammers, but creates a bit of mitigation for people who just sign up here to promote things.

]Is the current volume of spam posing a problem for real users? Does it get in the way of using the forum?

I'd suggest this is the key question. Overall I think the answer is probably no. It happens often enough that if I ruled the board I'd consider options - although it sounds like you have. But it happens seldom enough that it can be cleared up when it does without too much negative effect on the overall experience.

Thanks for your response.

1413

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: September 02, 2021, 05:27:47 PM »

I understand why you guys want to talk about someone else's possible bad actions when confronted with Joe Biden's abhorent behavior

People are actually talking about your hypocrisy. Keep up.

1414

Suggestions & Concerns / New Users’ Posting Rights

« on: September 02, 2021, 08:37:20 AM »

I see we’ve had a fly by spammer shitting up the board.
I wouldn’t see this is a major problem here but it’s not the first time I’ve seen it.
On other boards I’ve moderated I’ve done things to mitigate this like having to validate new users (often from the email address you can tell if it’s someone serious). Or you can do things like only let new users post in certain sections until they’ve shown they’re not just joining to spam.

For your consideration.

1415

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: An idea for experiment

« on: August 31, 2021, 07:49:36 AM »

LIGO has been previously discussed - https://wiki.tfes.org/LIGO_Curvature_Compensation

Right. So you have the people who built Ligo saying the curve of the earth means that, because they drilled the tunnel level, one end is closer to the ground than the other.
You're saying that instead of that (top diagram), they could actually have accidentally drilled it at an angle (bottom diagram):



That's what you're going with? And you're claiming other people are making unsourced assumptions?!
You know that when the Channel Tunnel was built they tunnelled from both ends and met in the middle - when they met the tunnels were off by just over 14 inches.
And your claim is that over a significantly smaller span they'd have tried to make a level tunnel but were accidentally off by 42 inches? Do they not have spirit levels and other technologies to make sure things are level?

1416

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 31, 2021, 06:39:15 AM »

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-complained-media-spent-weekend-covering-hurricane-ida-2021-8

What a weirdo.

As I said in the other thread, he clearly has a narcissistic personality disorder. If anything isn’t all about him then he can’t stand it.

1417

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: August 30, 2021, 08:50:25 PM »

Others have listed some of the things Trump did.

Can we add that he spent months lying about election fraud because his narcissistic personality disorder couldn’t allow him to countenance that he lost an election. Those lies resulted directly to the events on January 6th in which several people died and have done possibly irreparable damage to US democracy.

1418

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: An idea for experiment

« on: August 30, 2021, 08:44:55 PM »

Experiments have been done like this with a laser over water. Unsurprisingly, it failed to definitively resolve anything.

1419

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: August 30, 2021, 12:59:09 PM »

It is common for one to look away,  look down,  while listening to another person.

It’s also common for people with certain agendas to find every possible excuse to criticise Biden, having spent 4 years bending over backwards to be an apologist for everything Trump did no matter how crass or embarrassing.

1420

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: August 26, 2021, 03:38:07 PM »

Can't make this shit up.

You can make this shit up. Someone did make it up.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-08-20/fact-focus-covid-19-shots-not-forced-on-kids-in-australia