The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (PUBLIC) The Pub Best Speech You Will Ever Hear

The ism argument, isnt an argument though. veganism , vegetarianism... there I just added an "ism" to those two words. Are they suddenly irrational?

As far as the argument you are making re: Descartes, it is apparent you are missing the point entirely.

The main point revolves around cognito ergo sum, " I think therefore I am".

---

Furthermore, we have to go back to the moral argument - because you have not sufficiently addressed it. The fact is that evolution has imparted sophisticated response mechanisms on non human creatures. This is not the same as imparting reason or morality. ( which raises another issue, that is the question of reciprocating morality. One yardstick some would use, and I see some value in regarding applicability of morality is whether a given species or object is itself capable of morality. Or in other words, what value does the concept of morality have ; if the subjects in question by definition have no morality. Keep in mind, this concept is not dealing with cases where morality differs, or a cognizant actor makes a ration decision to be immoral - such as a misbehaving or ignorant human - but rather when a being or actor is fundamentally incapable of grasping the concept of morality in of itself. Think of it as a different type of turing test.)

Humans do share quite a bit with non humans, this is a fact. However there are some very important bits that are not shared.

Also, you have not articulated any argument as to why humans should subsume their will, or Will to Power as it were to non human actors. You have thrown out some hypothetical examples as to a "casual" relationship that occurs in some instances, between human well being and animal well being ( your dietary and global warming assertions, which while I do not accept or agree with those assertions I am willing to accept as hypothetically true for the sake of this particular argument, because my reasoning is not dependent on those being untrue and haggling over them confuses the issue) - you still have yet to establish that there is a "causal" relationship between animal and human well being. ( Or in other words, a direct cause-effect link whereby all pain inflicted on animals in inherently detrimental to humans) If you could make a causal, as opposed to a casual relationship link then you would have a morality argument. However, you do not.

I honestly implore you to engage your faculties regarding this matter, and objectively re-construct your own arguments from the ground up in as objective a manner as possible. Typically a good way to do this, is to at the very least make attempts to reason through things with your own arguments - and put your arguments in your own words.

Pasting things like links and quotes can be useful for giving background, or saving yourself some typing when it comes to sharing general info. But if you wish to make any type of convincing argument in a discussion of this nature, you need to construct and articulate your own arguments... not just paste a quote with someones opinion.

To you, they are preaching to the choir - and you undoubtedly feel reassured by the self-reinforcement. However to people who do not currently agree with you, you are just pasting a random opinion in lieu of evidence or logic.