StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What part of "last two sentences of my previous reply" are you too fucking stupid to understand, exactly? I told you exactly where to find what I'm talking about, and you're playing dumb and pretending you have no idea what I'm referring to? No worries; I found it. Responded too, via edit...

I am going to say this very slowly, "Legault". Why is my name in parentheses, "Darth Wong"? You accused me of not answering your question about why we should use what you derisively refer to as "scientism". You also snipped out the last two sentences of my previous rep...

Legault, one question: At what point do biological data trump philosophical speculation? How much must I know about the biological mechanisms of an organism before philosophical arguments about what it really is become moot? What is this about "trumping" now? I'm not trying to champion ph...

Actually, you haven't made that distinction. Every time someone brings up evidence against your point you just smugly dismiss it by repeating you can't get inside anybody else's head, without any attempt at qualifying the statement. Let's try not to dive into name-calling. If I'm being smug, then y...

How is that different from "whatever I really like"? You strike me as a reductive hedonist, so it might not seem different to you. Most normal people, however, make a distinction between higher and lower kinds of pleasure, the highest of which would be the feeling of a purposive life. But...

So you're arguing a position you don't entirely agree with for the purpose of serious discussion? devils advocate or trolling? Devil's advocacy in good spirits. You'll just have to trust me on this one. But we're talking about a real life situation. Brainless chickens. Really simple low level stimu...

Define "existential meaning". It's easier to define "existential comfort," which is directly related: the feeling of living a fulfilled and meaningful life. That's what Nehamas and his contemporaries are referring to. We're talking about moral codes, and moral codes are simply b...

Fine, but do you act like people's subjective experiences are entirely foreign on a daily basis? I mean, when your friend is hopping around the kitchen, swearing and clutching his toe, do you assume this is an entirely foreign manifestation of joy? Do you assume you can't really know what he's feel...

Wow. You flunk reading comprehension 101. You actually interpreted my statement exactly backward. I was saying that you don't need a morality code to tell you to do what you already want to do. In other words, a morality code must give you different motivations than the ones you naturally have, oth...

I'm really not following your logic here "This chicken is freaking the fuck out because I stabbed it" > "I know this to be identical to the typical human reaction to pain" > "Humans and chicken's physiology are incredibly similar" > "pfff it could be feeling anyth...

How is it important? You just keep harping on how long it's been around, how much influence it's had on our history, etc. How does that mean anything in terms of validity? I hear the exact same argument for religious nonsense all the time. It was a recommendation, nothing more. (Well, that's not en...

What the shit, dude. It's actually pretty easy to relate to the experiences of other human beings. I suggest you try it some time. You're confusing empathy/sympathy with subjective experience. When I say "I'm happy" (for example, about getting lectured by BBS posters about philosophy), yo...

Not to sound like a broken record (and only a dozen posts into my usership, dear oh dear), but you should check out Daybreak if you want an influential account of morality. It's Nietzsche, which means it's relevant to all modern thought.

Give me a minute. I have to process the stupidity. Oh dear. You know that when you start a rebuttal this way, it's only asking for me to fire back, right? Have it your way. 1) Shared evolutionary history and the conservation of basic processes leads us logically to that inference, provided the proc...

Again with the antiquities. This is not a museum or a pawn shop. Antiquity does not automatically confer value, and name-dropping does not do so either. Please. The last thing I would do is name-drop ancient philosophers to get e-cred, especially on a forum as pro-modern as this is. I'm only doing ...

So how do you reconcile 'people taking precedance' with the market failure to actually distribute food? From where I'm standing, it's two distinct positions: 1) The free market, regulated in ways but unfettered for the most part, promotes the greatest economic welfare in the long-term. I admit that...

While I'm tempted to take this in an economic direction (as the likely lone Republican on these forums, I have nothing but praise for the market), it's unnecessary, because all of this boils down to personal value judgments. I offered up "cognitive function" as one possible way to look at ...

Which is precisely why morality in the traditional sense is broken. This is the point I tried to make to you earlier, and which you answered with your incoherent nonsense about how you should not "forget where you come from". I see. At least now we know why you didn't feel the rest of my ...

Yes to both. Though I'm curious: what does pork have to do with it?

@Destructionator: Very well put. Without free will, morality in the traditional sense no longer exists. But it may be of some value to examine just what this traditional sense happens to be. From what I've read, most (and this may not include all, so forgive me if I'm categorizing you wrongly) view ...

Are you suggesting that we can't know that an animal is feeling pain, or that pain is somehow not real? Something like that. Remember, for Descartes, mind and body are entirely distinct, which would make the pain-is-illusion position much stronger. Most of us moderns would discard this duality, but...

No way to evaluate the subjective experience? If a living thing does nothing but scream and thrash and try to kill itself and its companions (which you solve by maiming it), I daresay that is not a positive environment. Positive for what, exactly? Perhaps the subjective experience of that organism ...

I think you need to back up here for a second and re-evaluate your thinking for a moment, because you are making a fundamental error here, namely that secular people think differently from religious people. This sort of metathinking, to consider your own thought patterns and structures, is extremel...

I wouldn't agree here (mindless or no), but if it can indeed be done through selective breeding it doesn't have to add to the cost. Maybe a little up front in research and development, but long term it'd probably be the same since it is otherwise all the same shit. If you can do it for free, then I...

Whether or not this is a feasible option is irrelevant, because I can see no good reason to give a damn about chicken's rights. Really now, is the reduced suffering of poultry worth the higher cost to the consumer (many of whom, by the way, are lower-class)? This fantasical concern with animal right...