Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Baloo · 03-15-2002, 07:17 AM

Spin,

For starters, yeah, my previous post was kind of an impulse nit-pick which did not at all hint at my basis of morality with respect to animal rights. Rather than just hand that moral system over and attempt to justify it, let me see if by pointing out inconsistencies in your moral system, I can actually lead you to "see the errors of your ways".
(Please note: IMO, Bill already accomplished this feat with punkerslut, when he showed that punker had to label the "murder and canibalism of a child" as morally acceptable (under his moral theory) in the "stranded on an island" scenario. Mine will be an attempt to show equally ridiculous conclusions derived from spin's moral system).

Let's say I write a computer program which takes a numeric input and gives audio output. The computer program maintains a single int variable, suffering, which is influenced by the input. Large inputs increase the variable, small inputs decrease it. When you enter a small number, the program plays a relived "sigh" audio, a spoken "thank you" audio, etc. But higher numbers cause "shriek" audio's, "pleading" audios, etc., to be played. As the suffering variable gets higher, the program plays it's audios more frequently and at higher volumes.

It is ridiculous to say that continually typing high numbers into this program is "immoral". However, quite literally, the person doing this is increasing the "suffering" of an entity which interacts with it's environment in a stimuli/response mechanism.

Please tell me how your moral system precludes giving this computer program those rights you would extend to an ant.

spin · 03-15-2002, 07:22 AM

spin:
-----------------
You may consider attempting to represent what is happening with regard to the unnecessary killing and eating of other animals rude.
-----------------

bonduca:
-----------------
No, I consider personal attacks and insults rude. It does little to further your cause.
-----------------

Are you a believer in "ok, I'll just lie here and let you do it and I'll attempt to be polite as you do"?

spin:
-----------------
I don't. It may conflict with their received ideas, but that is their problem.
-----------------

bonduca:
-----------------
Spin, people dislike being attacked and insulted.
-----------------

I can understand that. There has been a lot of attacking and insulting.

bonduca:
-----------------
They are less likely to listen to you when in defensive mode.
-----------------

Are you just telling me this out of good citizenship?

bonduca:
-----------------
You may find you are expending a great deal of energy in expounding upon beliefs that no one is receptive to, simply because they feel you have attacked them. How is that helpful?
-----------------

Sensitization.

spin:
---------------------
You refuse to acknowledge the content in my posts, by pointing to the trappings which "upset" you. Why not take a little time to catch up?
---------------------

bonduca:
-----------------
I am aware of these arguments, I have many vegetarian friends. These trappings DO upset me.
-----------------

This is an old problem of a reader letting form interfere with content.

bonduca:
-----------------
They are pointless and rude.
-----------------

Is it rude or pointless to make a close analogy between eating animal meat and eating human meat?

Is it rude or pointless to compare experiments on animals with experiments in concentration camps?

bonduca:
-----------------
They make it impossible for me to have a rational discussion with you.
-----------------

Sometimes the truth hurts. I am rational. If you want to discuss and not run to some of your earlier non sequitur one-liners, I am ready to discuss the matter with you.

bonduca:
----------------
If anything, they will become resistant to your argument. What have you accomplished in sixteen pages?
----------------

What have you?

bonduca:
-----------------
But I am not attempting to convert anyone.
-----------------

This might come as a surprise to you, but I have already said I'm not in the conversion business.

bonduca:
-----------------
I am as I was before, only my opinion of you is, sadly, less complimentary than before.
-----------------

You don't know me and cannot judge from what you see in internet discussions of which you have shown yourself to be diametrically opposed.

bonduca
----------------
Has anyone been converted? Does anyone even appear to take you seriously?
----------------

spin:
-----------------
I don't expect *you* to. But then you may prove my expectations wrong.
-----------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bonduca:
-----------------
Has anyone on this thread been converted by reading your posts?
-----------------

You insist on this conversion business. Is that your only way of understanding what's happening?

bonduca:
-----------------
Many people have been offended, but negative attention will not accomplish your objective. Will it? I ask you, Spin, who has been converted by reading this thread?
-----------------

Many people whose comments I have extracted and posted recently, mostly before I arrived in the discussion, show what their opinions were. These people were clearly and deliberately being offensive, negative, ridiculing. They don't like not being treated politely in return.

bonduca:
-----------------
Your concern for the feelings of other animals does you credit, but you will not impress anyone by attacking them and being rude to them, however passionately you may feel about your cause.
-----------------

I don't want credit. What good is internet credit to me?

You are conducting a meta-discussion, not talking about the thread at all. This is another way of putting off dealing with the subject.

SallySmith · 03-15-2002, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Up North:
<strong>I feel no guilt in eating animals. I do feel contempt towards people who attempt to convert or force their beliefs on me. As such, I see proselytizing vegans such as Spin and Punkerslut in the same light as I see fudie xians. Therein, I would venture, lies the "hostility"</strong>

Well, I realize that I can't blame you for behavior on another thread that you weren't even a part of, but my point was that I was definitely not trying to force my beliefs on anyone or convert anyone in the Atheist Vegetarians? thread and there was still an enormous amount of hostility. I don't buy that it's b/c of proselytizing.

Mageth · 03-15-2002, 07:24 AM

(I'm not a moderator but I'll say it anyway)

We should all drop this finger-pointing and insult-throwing. Both sides have been guilty of improprieties in this thread. It's not furthering the discussion at all. This thread's in danger of being moved into RRP, if we don't.

And Sally, in all due respect, this isn't a soccer match so the score doesn't matter.

SallySmith · 03-15-2002, 07:28 AM

I agree with Mageth. Can't we call a cease-fire?

And Mageth, I was just trying to say that I feel spin is being treated poorly and is actually showing restraint under the circumstances.

spin · 03-15-2002, 07:29 AM

Koy:
-------------
I see no qualitative difference--morally speaking--from eating any form of matter. I believe all matter is conscious and all matter is self-aware, including the electrons which are right now quivering on your screen.
-------------

Spin:
-------------
If you eat meat, you are wilfully talking rubbish for argumentative purposes.
-------------

Koy:
-------------
You are a hypocritical, sanctimonious fundaterian and can, as always, piss up a rope.
-------------

Well, if you insist, please define what you mean by "all matter" and "consciousness", then overcome the epistemological quagmire of trying to know what consciousness is outside the normal understanding of the term, then you I might reconsider your statements.

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-15-2002, 07:32 AM

Sally--

Perhaps the reason is that you took a morally pious stance, condemning others either directly (like Spin and Punkerslut) or indirectly?

There are two things that I object to here:
<ol type="1">[*] Hypocrisy (it is morally wrong to eat animals, but morally right to eat plants, just because it is)[*] Sanctimonious, holier-than-thou posturing.[/list=a]

I think I can speak for most in here that it is within these two areas that most invective was generated.

We don't tolerate moral posturing by sanctimonious cult members, so why the hell would anyone think that we'd tolerate it from sanctimonious fundaterians?

spin · 03-15-2002, 07:34 AM

baloo:
------------
It is ridiculous to say that continually typing high numbers into this program is "immoral". However, quite literally, the person doing this is increasing the "suffering" of an entity which interacts with it's environment in a stimuli/response mechanism.
------------

What is the entity you are referring to?

baloo:
------------
Please tell me how your moral system precludes giving this computer program those rights you would extend to an ant.
------------

I try to avoid treading on ants. I don't tread on computer programs. I must say though that I don't think computer programs have either consciousness or a truly sensorily related connection to reality.

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-15-2002, 07:36 AM

Well, what do you know. An actual question.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spin: Well, if you insist, please define what you mean by "all matter" and "consciousness",

"All matter" is self explanatory.

"Consciousness"=Self awareness.

Quote:

MORE: then overcome the epistemological quagmire of trying to know what consciousness is outside the normal understanding of the term,

Done.

Quote:

MORE: then you I might reconsider your statements.

How generous.

spin · 03-15-2002, 07:39 AM

Mageth:
-------------
We should all drop this finger-pointing and insult-throwing. Both sides have been guilty of improprieties in this thread.
-------------

What seems to be the core of finger-pointing and insult-throwing is mainly based on what I would consider people not analysing analogies, but being shocked by the connection with hard cruel world examples which are parallel to what people thoughtlessly do.

Nazi doctors did experiment on human animals just as "scientists" do experiment on other animals, so people see "Nazi" and stop thinking.

Jeffrey Dahmer ate human animals with what I consider the same sort of consciousness as some people eat other animals. The parallel was not disputed as being inappropriate. Some people simply didn't like being related to Jeffrey Dahmer. But all they had to do was to show that the parallel was inappropriate. Not a single person succeeded, and almost no-one tried.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2002, 07:17 AM	#411
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	Spin, For starters, yeah, my previous post was kind of an impulse nit-pick which did not at all hint at my basis of morality with respect to animal rights. Rather than just hand that moral system over and attempt to justify it, let me see if by pointing out inconsistencies in your moral system, I can actually lead you to "see the errors of your ways". (Please note: IMO, Bill already accomplished this feat with punkerslut, when he showed that punker had to label the "murder and canibalism of a child" as morally acceptable (under his moral theory) in the "stranded on an island" scenario. Mine will be an attempt to show equally ridiculous conclusions derived from spin's moral system). Let's say I write a computer program which takes a numeric input and gives audio output. The computer program maintains a single int variable, suffering, which is influenced by the input. Large inputs increase the variable, small inputs decrease it. When you enter a small number, the program plays a relived "sigh" audio, a spoken "thank you" audio, etc. But higher numbers cause "shriek" audio's, "pleading" audios, etc., to be played. As the suffering variable gets higher, the program plays it's audios more frequently and at higher volumes. It is ridiculous to say that continually typing high numbers into this program is "immoral". However, quite literally, the person doing this is increasing the "suffering" of an entity which interacts with it's environment in a stimuli/response mechanism. Please tell me how your moral system precludes giving this computer program those rights you would extend to an ant.

03-15-2002, 07:22 AM	#412
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: ----------------- You may consider attempting to represent what is happening with regard to the unnecessary killing and eating of other animals rude. ----------------- bonduca: ----------------- No, I consider personal attacks and insults rude. It does little to further your cause. ----------------- Are you a believer in "ok, I'll just lie here and let you do it and I'll attempt to be polite as you do"? spin: ----------------- I don't. It may conflict with their received ideas, but that is their problem. ----------------- bonduca: ----------------- Spin, people dislike being attacked and insulted. ----------------- I can understand that. There has been a lot of attacking and insulting. bonduca: ----------------- They are less likely to listen to you when in defensive mode. ----------------- Are you just telling me this out of good citizenship? bonduca: ----------------- You may find you are expending a great deal of energy in expounding upon beliefs that no one is receptive to, simply because they feel you have attacked them. How is that helpful? ----------------- Sensitization. spin: --------------------- You refuse to acknowledge the content in my posts, by pointing to the trappings which "upset" you. Why not take a little time to catch up? --------------------- bonduca: ----------------- I am aware of these arguments, I have many vegetarian friends. These trappings DO upset me. ----------------- This is an old problem of a reader letting form interfere with content. bonduca: ----------------- They are pointless and rude. ----------------- Is it rude or pointless to make a close analogy between eating animal meat and eating human meat? Is it rude or pointless to compare experiments on animals with experiments in concentration camps? bonduca: ----------------- They make it impossible for me to have a rational discussion with you. ----------------- Sometimes the truth hurts. I am rational. If you want to discuss and not run to some of your earlier non sequitur one-liners, I am ready to discuss the matter with you. bonduca: ---------------- If anything, they will become resistant to your argument. What have you accomplished in sixteen pages? ---------------- What have you? bonduca: ----------------- But I am not attempting to convert anyone. ----------------- This might come as a surprise to you, but I have already said I'm not in the conversion business. bonduca: ----------------- I am as I was before, only my opinion of you is, sadly, less complimentary than before. ----------------- You don't know me and cannot judge from what you see in internet discussions of which you have shown yourself to be diametrically opposed. bonduca ---------------- Has anyone been converted? Does anyone even appear to take you seriously? ---------------- spin: ----------------- I don't expect you to. But then you may prove my expectations wrong. ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bonduca: ----------------- Has anyone on this thread been converted by reading your posts? ----------------- You insist on this conversion business. Is that your only way of understanding what's happening? bonduca: ----------------- Many people have been offended, but negative attention will not accomplish your objective. Will it? I ask you, Spin, who has been converted by reading this thread? ----------------- Many people whose comments I have extracted and posted recently, mostly before I arrived in the discussion, show what their opinions were. These people were clearly and deliberately being offensive, negative, ridiculing. They don't like not being treated politely in return. bonduca: ----------------- Your concern for the feelings of other animals does you credit, but you will not impress anyone by attacking them and being rude to them, however passionately you may feel about your cause. ----------------- I don't want credit. What good is internet credit to me? You are conducting a meta-discussion, not talking about the thread at all. This is another way of putting off dealing with the subject.

03-15-2002, 07:24 AM	#414
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	(I'm not a moderator but I'll say it anyway) We should all drop this finger-pointing and insult-throwing. Both sides have been guilty of improprieties in this thread. It's not furthering the discussion at all. This thread's in danger of being moved into RRP, if we don't. And Sally, in all due respect, this isn't a soccer match so the score doesn't matter.

03-15-2002, 07:28 AM	#415
SallySmith Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 263	I agree with Mageth. Can't we call a cease-fire? And Mageth, I was just trying to say that I feel spin is being treated poorly and is actually showing restraint under the circumstances.

03-15-2002, 07:29 AM	#416
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Koy: ------------- I see no qualitative difference--morally speaking--from eating any form of matter. I believe all matter is conscious and all matter is self-aware, including the electrons which are right now quivering on your screen. ------------- Spin: ------------- If you eat meat, you are wilfully talking rubbish for argumentative purposes. ------------- Koy: ------------- You are a hypocritical, sanctimonious fundaterian and can, as always, piss up a rope. ------------- Well, if you insist, please define what you mean by "all matter" and "consciousness", then overcome the epistemological quagmire of trying to know what consciousness is outside the normal understanding of the term, then you I might reconsider your statements.

03-15-2002, 07:32 AM	#417
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Sally-- Perhaps the reason is that you took a morally pious stance, condemning others either directly (like Spin and Punkerslut) or indirectly? There are two things that I object to here: <ol type="1">[] Hypocrisy (it is morally wrong to eat animals, but morally right to eat plants, just because it is)[] Sanctimonious, holier-than-thou posturing.[/list=a] I think I can speak for most in here that it is within these two areas that most invective was generated. We don't tolerate moral posturing by sanctimonious cult members, so why the hell would anyone think that we'd tolerate it from sanctimonious fundaterians?

03-15-2002, 07:34 AM	#418
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	baloo: ------------ It is ridiculous to say that continually typing high numbers into this program is "immoral". However, quite literally, the person doing this is increasing the "suffering" of an entity which interacts with it's environment in a stimuli/response mechanism. ------------ What is the entity you are referring to? baloo: ------------ Please tell me how your moral system precludes giving this computer program those rights you would extend to an ant. ------------ I try to avoid treading on ants. I don't tread on computer programs. I must say though that I don't think computer programs have either consciousness or a truly sensorily related connection to reality.

03-15-2002, 07:39 AM	#420
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Mageth: ------------- We should all drop this finger-pointing and insult-throwing. Both sides have been guilty of improprieties in this thread. ------------- What seems to be the core of finger-pointing and insult-throwing is mainly based on what I would consider people not analysing analogies, but being shocked by the connection with hard cruel world examples which are parallel to what people thoughtlessly do. Nazi doctors did experiment on human animals just as "scientists" do experiment on other animals, so people see "Nazi" and stop thinking. Jeffrey Dahmer ate human animals with what I consider the same sort of consciousness as some people eat other animals. The parallel was not disputed as being inappropriate. Some people simply didn't like being related to Jeffrey Dahmer. But all they had to do was to show that the parallel was inappropriate. Not a single person succeeded, and almost no-one tried.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.