This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Pendulate
Pages: 1 ... 789 1011 ... 16
241
« on: June 04, 2015, 10:40:09 PM »
That would just make science a branch of philosophy, because it has to accept empiricism by default
Which is obviously playing semantics.
242
« on: June 04, 2015, 09:07:30 PM »
How can a philosophy be dishonest?
243
« on: June 04, 2015, 08:58:20 PM »
I saw Lost in Translation recently, it's excellent.
244
« on: June 04, 2015, 08:55:45 PM »
Everything is an aesthetic discipline.
^
If you get personal enrichment from something, it's aesthetic. So practically anything can be aesthetic
Objective beauty, on the other hand...
I'll refer you to my previous admission of ignorance.
What's the difference?
Between subjective and objective beauty? Aesthetics is, broadly, the study of how external objects relate to internal experiences. So, the Mona Lisa has aesthetic value, or beauty, because it evokes certain pleasant, or "beautiful" experiences. Technically speaking, asparagus has aesthetic beauty, assuming you like like asparagus. But that's clearly just subjective; someone else may find asparagus disgusting and the Mona Lisa the work of a talentless hack. So to argue that something is objectively beautiful usually requires invoking some kind of metaphysical claim, tweaking the definition of beauty (not an entirely invalid thing to do), and perhaps even claiming that some people are just wrong about what's beautiful and what isn't. There are a lot of long-winded philosophical terms wrapped up in this, which I'll avoid getting into here.
245
« on: June 04, 2015, 08:35:02 PM »
Everything is an aesthetic discipline.
^ If you get personal enrichment from something, it's aesthetic. So practically anything can be aesthetic Objective beauty, on the other hand...
246
« on: June 04, 2015, 05:32:37 PM »
No. That implies it needs curing.
247
« on: June 04, 2015, 08:04:55 AM »
onion beetle - pelican lol.
248
« on: June 03, 2015, 06:18:09 PM »
I am so fucking excited.
249
« on: June 03, 2015, 06:05:50 PM »
I see no good reason to go there
250
« on: June 03, 2015, 05:59:29 PM »
I think saying it's "nothing to worry about" is a bit unfair when you also acknowledge that it has social consequences, and our happiness depends largely on social integration
But I've only read the last page so maybe you covered this.
yes, you are indeed misconstruing my message
i'm not glibly saying that there's nothing to worry about--i'm using that phrase in a broader context
what i've been saying is that gender SHOULD NOT matter to anyone
thereby meaning that there would be nothing to worry about
objectively speaking, there already is nothing to worry about--people (the bullies) just choose to act like gender matters, because they're fucking stupid
Gotcha.
251
« on: June 03, 2015, 05:51:46 PM »
I think saying it's "nothing to worry about" is a bit unfair when you also acknowledge that it has social consequences, and our happiness depends largely on social integration But I've only read the last page so maybe you covered this.
252
« on: June 03, 2015, 07:13:04 AM »
Buzzkill.
253
« on: June 03, 2015, 07:09:50 AM »
Why did the potato farmer go broke? Spoiler He wasn't reaping the fruits of his labour
254
« on: June 03, 2015, 03:27:52 AM »
As in, both twins became transgender?
255
« on: June 03, 2015, 03:17:10 AM »
Is there any evidence that you can?
Being transgender =/= being born transgender
256
« on: June 03, 2015, 01:58:58 AM »
Money's on IBM.
257
« on: June 02, 2015, 12:49:17 AM »
Okay that's a bit ridiculous.
258
« on: June 01, 2015, 08:44:02 PM »
Implying fat people bother to use forks
259
« on: June 01, 2015, 06:41:28 PM »
The sport itself is probably good, I just think the culture is stupid.
260
« on: June 01, 2015, 04:39:37 AM »
But I'm a utilitarian myself, which is why I can see no difference between the two cases.
One is done for pleasure in the form of food.
One is done for pleasure in the form of trophy collection/enjoyment of the sport etc.
It would then befall you to explain why the pleasure derived from food is a greater utility than the pleasure derived from sport-hunting. Which I don't think you've managed to do, other than to dub food as an "essential good", which I addressed.
I think we agree on more than you realize, there are just pieces of the puzzle that haven't been fitted into place. But if you're done with this one, that's fine, I guess. Thanks for the discussion.
261
« on: June 01, 2015, 04:13:45 AM »
If that wasn't the point of contention, then don't ask if "there is a difference between hunting for sport and hunting for food". I didn't ask that. I asked: is the unnecessary killing of an animal unethical regardless of which unnecessary purpose it is killed for?People have given differences, you've just handwaved them away as not being the point of contention. I've been having this dialogue with you for nearly two hours now, during which I have addressed all of your comments and explained, in great detail and more than once, why some of your points are not relevant. But if you want to shrug it off as "handwaving", well, fine, but it's pretty insincere. As I stated earlier, when I was more composed, you've either done an abysmal job of explaining your point from the start or you're pushing veganism. But my point is in my question above. And other users seem to have grasped it pretty well. Which you never address the part where I tell you that I'm not disagreeing. Okay. Killing things is bad, yes. I've just said that killing for sport is worse than killing for food sense you're not going to use it to the same extent. But you are disagreeing. Hunting for sport creates more waste. I don't see how, if the animal is stuffed and used as a trophy. At any rate the amount of wastage in each case would be a rather trivial matter. If you wanted to talk about how unethical killing things was, then state that in the OP. If you read the OP, you would have seen this: *Also this is not intended to be a "go vegan" proselytism. I'm just interested in the ethics of hunting.
It's very frustrating explaining why I chose my response to your original statement and being told that it's wrong based on the standards of an (until the past hour) unstated goal.
Also in the OP: what's the difference between killing an animal because you want their head mounted on your wall, and killing it because you want a steak on your plate?
Assuming in both cases that it is in developed society with access to supermarkets, obviously.I'm sorry, but it seems you simply did not take the time to read my post, and thus you have been on a different page throughout our interchange.
262
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:48:41 AM »
Here it is:
If you're going to kill something, don't waste it. there is the entire point, in one sentence. Okay, but like I said, that was never the point of contention. Store-bought meat came up, again, as continuing the notion that you introduced pages before this: that you shouldn't hunt because you can just go to the store. I added that preservatives, plus poor farming standards, aren't exactly the best alternative just to try and help flesh it out a bit since it didn't catch on in the first place. I've explained why this is not relevant to the initial question in great detail, so I won't repeat myself here. I am frustrated, yes, but more because of this apparent communication barrier. We shouldn't be talking past each other, especially considering that this is all from an offhanded comment I made on the topic in an attempt to put it back on track and get it away from veganism and anti-natalism. Okay, then let's take the reigns: I agree that there are better and worse ways to utilise an animal's corpse after killing it. But this does not say anything about the act of killing itself. That's what I'm interested in discussing. Is the unnecessary killing of an animal unethical regardless of which unnecessary purpose it is killed for? And I know you're point: all hunting is bad, so don't do it. I actually don't hold that view. Eat plant-based food instead of meat. I do hold that view, but that wasn't the purpose of this thread. You can try to avoid using the word all you want, but it's incredibly obvious that it's the intent of this thread by this point. Then you must have missed a recent thread on veganism that exceeded 300 posts and in which I had all the discussion I could possibly want to have on the topic. Please stop thinking that you have exposed some hidden agenda of mine. It simply isn't how I operate.
263
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:31:38 AM »
Without having read any of this thread: is this going to be about how even hunting for food provides fun because people enjoy eating meat?
Kind of. It's examining both forms of hunting outside of strict necessity; I'm arguing that hunting because you like stuffed trophies is no different from hunting because you like deer burgers. But I may be wrong.
264
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:12:20 AM »
I'd like to, but you won't concede something as slight as the fact that one is more immoral than the other, regardless of if that difference is on a Planck-level or a macro-level. But I'm happy to concede it, in the face of a compelling argument. I don't appreciate being called stubborn just because I don't find your argument convincing (rather we have been talking past each other for a while now, so I'm hardly going to be swayed by points that aren't pertinent to the question I'm asking). This is the thing I've been trying to state this entire time, and no matter what I do to say that, you keep bringing it back to veganism. I've gone and re-read my comments and the only times I talked about veganism were when you brought up store-bought meat. So I think that's a pretty unfair accusation, since I have been repeatedly trying to move the discussion away from it. The fact that you feel you need to convince me anything of veganism, again, shows how much of an assumption you're making of me. Where did I try to convince you of veganism? See, this is why I prefer the quote-by-quote format: I actually want answers to these questions. this isn't a problem of veganism vs a traditional diet. It's a problem of utilitarianism and pragmatism.
But that's exactly what I've been stressing this whole time...! Yes, it's an ethical problem in the act of hunting itself. I was trying to discuss the ethics of the two examples I gave, in and of themselves; you diverted onto commercial farming, so I tried to put us back on course; you accuse me of secretly trying to promote veganism. I'm not playing the victim here, but I honestly have no idea how it went downhill so fast.
265
« on: June 01, 2015, 02:30:48 AM »
Sorry, but I prefer not to debate in that format. I feel it tends to lead to taking things out of context, and it's something I'd rather not do. Okay =[ If I take you out of context please let me know. You contend that there are alternatives. Fine and dandy, but I will repeat, I am not discussing veganism. But you are discussing the ethics of store-bought meat, and using it to support your argument for hunting. So you've kind of forced me to bring up veganism as the alternative you left out. I came into the thread to state something that was quite obvious, and a page later I'm still trying to explain it. Venison is objectively a food, no matter how you think of it. Therefore, it fulfills a core necessity (food, shelter, clothing). You can contend that it's not necessary all you wish, but that doesn't mean it fits the role. I agree that it is food, in that it is something from which our bodies can extract nutrients. But that was never the point of contention. My argument is that whether an animal can be food or not is irrelevant if there is no necessity for it to be used as food. I feel you're being sanctimonious because, no matter how many times I tell you I don't want to discuss veganism, you keep turning it into a discussion on promoting veganism. I'm not, though. I've been trying my best to avoid it. But instead of strictly discussing the ethics of two forms of hunting compared to one another, you tried to argue that hunting for food was more ethical simply because it is preferable to another, external alternative: buying store meat. This misses the point of the question, so I had no choice but to explain why store-bought meat was not the only alternative. Someone says that they can eat it, you say they can go to supermarkets. Someone says that going to the supermarket for the same thing (underlined for stress) is a poor alternative, you say that you should just not eat meat. If you think it's subtle, it's not; you can call it being critical, but that doesn't change the fact that you are very poorly hiding your motive. If I wanted to plug veganism, I would do it outright. Why would I do it under the veil of something else? Unless you know my motives better than I do, your accusation is off base. Hell, if you think of me as a (verb-described) "typical meat eater", then I've completely lost interest in discussing the subject. Where did I ever imply that I thought of you like that? All we're doing is having an open dialogue. I mean, I think that's what we're doing. We are doing that, aren't we?
266
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:52:11 AM »
necessary.
Before I say anything, define necessary for me. I want to be clear on what you're meaning by it first.
For the purpose of this discussion, an extreme measure that, if you were not to take, would cause you serious harm, seems reasonable. So this requires it to be the only measure available, or the least extreme of the bunch.
Obviously necessity is a difficult thing to pin down, but it's pretty clear in this case, where the hunters have easy access to supermarkets, that hunting for food is not necessary. By the mere fact that there are less extreme and less harmful options.
So you're supporting the notion that sulfites, nitrates, and BHA aren't linked to various cancers and increased asthma-sensitivity? And we've already agreed that buying from the supermarket is the more immoral of the two options, unless you want to revisit that.
And how is it "less harmful"?
I never advocated store-bought meat, though. The less harmful option is to buy plant-based foods.
267
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:49:43 AM »
Would you mind quoting my points and addressing them as I am doing for you? I find it a much better format for these discussions where the posts can get rather lengthy. It should be obvious given the framing of the question that "essentials" refers to food in general and [direct/converted] material for shelter, unless you're contesting that we don't need to eat or need shelter. Okay, but then why use them to support your argument that hunting for food is ethically preferable? If you are saying that food is "essential" but not always necessary (as we have established in this situation) then saying that hunting for food is better because it produces "essential goods" seems like a false move. And I'm not being sanctimonious when I say this. I'm just being critical of your arguments. And I've already established this, which you didn't refute. hunting for sport doesn't provide food, it isn't converting raw materials into practical tools: it only creates a trophy. A trophy, I also conceded, /could/ be bartered (bizarrely), but the sole fact that it is only /one/ product rather than a multitude lessens its innate value. I thought I did address it when I explained how merely providing food is not an inherently good thing when 1) there is no need for said food and 2) it involves the moral issue of killing an animal. If we begin at bedrock with a) zero need for the animal's meat and b) zero need for the animal's antlers and fur, then killing the animal for either is, by definition, pointless. There is no difference between the two; or at least, none that I can see, and none that has yet been explained to me.
268
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:35:15 AM »
necessary.
Before I say anything, define necessary for me. I want to be clear on what you're meaning by it first.
For the purpose of this discussion, an extreme measure that, if you were not to take, would cause you serious harm, seems reasonable. So this requires it to be the only measure available, or the least extreme of the bunch. Obviously necessity is a difficult thing to pin down, but it's pretty clear in this case, where the hunters have easy access to supermarkets, that hunting for food is not necessary. By the mere fact that there are less extreme and less harmful options.
269
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:14:55 AM »
To say "You can eat something else" is irrelevant to the question: is it better to hunt for food or fun? Ah, but that's what I'm getting at: hunting for food is hunting for fun, a lot of the time.
Let's concede that for sake of argument. Here's the comparison:
Hunting for Food:
-Provides entertainment
-Provides essentials (food, shelter, services, goods)
-Provides non-essentials (decoration, frivolous goods)
Hunting for Sport:
-Provides entertainment
-Provides non-essentials (decoration, frivolous goods)
Hunting for food, even giving that those hunters may find it fun, is still more practical than hunting for sport. More practical being more useful, more useful being more ethical.
But now you're adding all these factors that were never present in the original question. The question assumed nothing more than both acts provide entertainment. Now you've added your own assumptions -- in a way that seems somewhat biased, actually. Why does hunting for food suddenly provide "essentials" (when I think we've established that it often doesn't) and why does hunting for sport provide strictly "non-essentials"? This was why I specifically chose to make my question exclusive to the kinds of hunting that are not necessary (an unnecessary act cannot be done to produce essential goods; this would invalidate the meaning of essentiality). And these kinds of food-hunting are very common in developed society, so it is not an unimportant question.
270
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:00:18 AM »
Well specifically, my question was regarding cases where necessity is not a factor. So I think we may still be talking past each other.
On my logical outline you agreed with Points A through C perfectly fine, which entailed why eating wild game is more ethical than commercially grown. To that end, necessity (by handwave of supermarkets) is irrelevant due to it being a comparatively immoral circumstance.
But I didn't say the only alternative was to go and buy meat from the supermarket. You can buy other foods instead. And no, this isn't a sly advertisement for veganism, because the question stands without referring to external variables -- all that needs to be assumed is that neither sport nor food hunting are necessary. If you then want to bring up meat alternatives in supermarkets, I'm justified in bringing up the vegan alternatives as well. Either way it only distracts from the central moral quandary.
Pages: 1 ... 789 1011 ... 16
|
Show Posts