Not Prince Hamlet

You forgot to say "Yoink!"

Hedwig

*pulls up a chair and proceeds to lurk*

pug846

Why not just challenge them to an argument over ethical subjectivism? Throwing in the issue of animal 'rights' would just complicate the matter and probably not be worth your time. Given that it would be necessary for the person in question to first establish that there are moral facts before they could argue that there is a moral fact that eating animals is wrong, it seems that the best way to proceed would be to settle the 'objective' question first.

Then again...given that most moral objectivists who feel that eating animals is morally wrong argue from 'moral outrage,' I don't expect much to come of this.

99Percent

I have to say that pug846 has a very valid point there...

Malaclypse the Younger

pug846

That would be fine. As noted in the challenge, my respondent may choose any resolution over which we disagree.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Sometimes it is better to discuss issues with a concrete reference point in mind; it might be easier to make the case for objectivism with a specific case at hand.

A clever ethical vegetarian might pick a resolution which forced me to defend an objective finding.

And even the subjectivist must avoid internal contradiction; for instance to condone the murder of people named "Bob", I must defend that making a moral distinction on the basis of someone's name is not absurd and (subjectively) contemptible.

They are complaining of censorship. How better to rebut that complaint than by offering the opportunity to present their views in the most favorable and prestigious format possible?

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

Also, as a subjectivist, I do not deny that there are objectively determinable strategies for optimizing values. A vegetarian might note that I say I agree to a certain set of values, and show that vegetarianism was objectively the best way to maximize the fulfillment that value. I would not disagree with that statement on principle, only on objective analysis.

echidna

What a ripoff !!! I paid 20 bucks for this seat and I wanna see a debate. A debate about a debate doesn’t count !!!

Someone start with the adhoms !!!

(hurls over-ripe tomato)

Pomp

echidna,

What a ripoff !!! I paid 20 bucks for this seat and I wanna see a debate. A debate about a debate doesn’t count !!!

Someone start with the adhoms !!!

(hurls over-ripe tomato)

Um...I find MtY's position reminiscent of Jeffrey Dahmer's rapist...or whatever. Maybe a Nazi something or other. At any rate, I'm shocked and appalled that he is allowed to walk the same streets as the rest of us. Won't someone please think of the children?

I think that works best if read in a monotone.

echidna

Doesn't murdering a tomato make me a paedophile ?

MadMordigan

How better to rebut that complaint than by offering the opportunity to present their views in the most favorable and prestigious format possible?

Against such a remarkably mediochre opponant.

I think I'll wait and watch Tonya Harding vs. Lennox Lewis.