Angry Goose Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 A wonderful discussion recently posted May 15th, 2013. Feel free to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 this old chestnut again? let me start it off with this: kevin bacon made out of bacon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarcastro Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Calling that video 'wonderful' is an appeal to emotion, therefore your opinion is invalid. I think we can just lock it up right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Calling that video 'wonderful' is an appeal to emotion, therefore your opinion is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 23, 2013 Author Share Posted May 23, 2013 Calling that video 'wonderful' is an appeal to emotion, therefore your opinion is invalid. I think we can just lock it up right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 23, 2013 Author Share Posted May 23, 2013 this old chestnut again? let me start it off with this: kevin bacon made out of bacon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Calling that video 'wonderful' is an appeal to emotion, therefore your opinion is invalid. I think we can just lock it up right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 He lost me when he started equating human life with animal life as equal individuals. No animal is equal to a human. No animal is worth a human life. Humans stand apart in that regard. I believe in conservation. I believe in preservation. I believe in it because it is in our best self interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks#01fan Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 He lost me when he started equating human life with animal life as equal individuals. No animal is equal to a human. No animal is worth a human life. Humans stand apart in that regard. I believe in conservation. I believe in preservation. I believe in it because it is in our best self interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsflash Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 ...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 24, 2013 Author Share Posted May 24, 2013 He lost me when he started equating human life with animal life as equal individuals. No animal is equal to a human. No animal is worth a human life. Humans stand apart in that regard. I believe in conservation. I believe in preservation. I believe in it because it is in our best self interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I'm not sure he was equating the two. Rather, I think he was trying to emphasize the fact that many animals and humans share many similarities, some of which are morally relevant. For example, the capacity for suffering. And if we take those similarities seriously then it is logically inconsistent to apply similar considerations to one but not the other. For instance, if vivisection on humans is strongly ruled out because of the agony it causes no matter the knowledge gained from it, then it is logically inconsistent to not at least strongly consider the agony animals endure through vivisection, and whether this is really justifiable. This doesn't necessarily equate the two either because you could still place more weight on human interests based on reasons which only apply in the case of humans, but you simply can't discount the interests animals have either. Well, I guess you could but then that type of thinking is exactly what the speaker in the video is critiquing. Hmmm not sure I agree with this. And I think you mean either formal or informal fallacies. And I'm not necessarily creating this thread to argue- just wanted to share that recent video. If you want to have an argumentative discussion then by all means go for it. Anything adressed to me I will try to respond to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 24, 2013 Author Share Posted May 24, 2013 oh ho ho, hee hee hoo ha ha. It was a very good video that did bring up several interesting discussion topics. Thank you for posting it. That bold part though is such an incredibly vague argument that lumps so many things together into one thing in the name of logistics it kind of ruins any actual discussion.(or at least the hope for one given your history on the subject) While it is true that inflicting pain unnecessarily is wrong when you get into the morality and ethical parts of these discussion (two human animal made concepts btw) you enter into a zone where the bull**** has rockets on it it flies so fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I apologize if it seems unclear. The intended meaning is that if suffering is a morally relevant characteristic that we take into consideration, and both some humans and some animals can suffer, then we ought to take the suffering of both into account, ethically speaking. Without good reason, it is irrational not to. However, this seems to assume some form of Moral Objectivism. Perhaps you disagree with this position though. If there are more specific things you take issue with, feel free to say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Silly Goose is notorius for never replying to actual arguments and only talking about literary fallacies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 24, 2013 Author Share Posted May 24, 2013 It is perfectly clear and very simple but leaves out important factors like how morality and ethics are man made concepts and how while you point out one similarity all the glaring differences between humans and animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.