IJustWantToTalk

IJustWantToTalk : I personally think the German language makes its speakers more considering about women...IJustWantToTalk : Like..it makes them appreciate the female entity more.Me : How?IJustWantToTalk : And might alsy explain why there're more German Femdom porn than..well..most of other nationalities.IJustWantToTalk : also*IJustWantToTalk : there are*IJustWantToTalk : Because in the German grammar, plurals and formal speech uses the feminine conjugations, unlike other languages I know.IJustWantToTalk : In many language, the third person conjugation is used for formal speech as it if it carries a lot of respect within it to the person you speak to, because as if you don't dare to speak to them directly, so you speak to them as if they're not there in front of you.IJustWantToTalk : In German, that's the feminine conjugation instead.IJustWantToTalk : In Hebrew, as far as I know, in the Bible, when God talked about himself, he used the first person plural for that matter, because he was GOD. So in Hebrew, plural adds more value. In German, Plual is basically feminine.

4/2/2019 - rigorous vegan argument

You both like politics, vegan, and veganism.

You: Hey. Alec Baldwin, Casey Affleck, Jessica Chastain, Ellen Page, Zac Efron have something in common...

Stranger: they're all celebrities

You: yes, and they're vegan

Stranger: they are? I didn't know that

You: =)

Stranger: miley cyrus is too

You: yep

Stranger: why are you vegan?

You: vegan someday

You: vegetarian for now

Stranger: why don't you eat animals?

You: against factory farming

You: and too cheap to buy local products

Stranger: so you would eat an animal that was hunted?

You: yes and no

You: I've vegetarian, so no

You: If I had a steady supply of meat like that, maybe

You: But I don't.

Stranger: ok

You: Are you vegan?

Stranger: yeah

You: Which main reason?

Stranger: main reason is because I think its wrong to murder humans and I can't see a good reason to not extend that same right to animals

Stranger: and then secondarily its health reasons

You: ok

You: I think that it boils down to the argument from marginal cases

You: On the difference between killing humans and animals

Stranger: what do you mean?

You: wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_marginal_cases

Stranger: yeah that's about it

You: Right, so then there's the argument from species normality

You: In 'criticism'

You: And that's what I believe

You: We derive utility from animals as food

You: As long as we're not making them suffer unnecessarily during the process, than I think it's fine

You: Basically, I don't think morality extends to non-humans

Stranger: so species normality in your words means what?

You: I don't find animals to have moral patienthood

Stranger: thats a crazy statement to make

You: I think it's rational.

Stranger: you would be fine if I set dogs on fire?

You: no, by what I said

You: As long as we're not making them suffer unnecessarily during the process

You: would have to ethically kill the dog

You: assuming it's for food

Stranger: ok lets talk about that word 'unnecessarily' is it necessary to kill animals for food?

You: no, but you're using what I mean out of context

You: I mean

You: unnecessary suffering

You: not unnecessary slaughter (as I noted with them lacking moral patienthood)

You: So I'm against debeaking, battery cages, etc

You: But not against killing animals for food.

You: with marginal suffering (completely the opposite of factory farming)

You: ya know, where they suffer due to their living conditions

Stranger: and this is justified because of species normality

Stranger: so what is species normality in your words?

You: I'd say the opposite: moral patienthood of animals is not justified.

You: It's a belief. The key idea is moral patienthood, and my understanding is that animals do not get the extension of full human rights. Of course I don't want any being to suffer though.

Stranger: You're doing something shifty there where you're trying to place the burden of proof on the other side of the argument when it really its you who has to explain the difference in treatment. The assumption should be that its wrong to murder all beings and if you want to remove that negative right from a being its up to you to explain the trait differences that the beings that according to you its ok to murder, don't have that the beings that it is not ok to murder, do have. also you're being shifty when you say " my understanding that animals do not get the extension of full human rights" as if that's what vegans want. vegans only want one right to be extended to animals and that's the right to not be murdered

You: "The assumption should be that its wrong to murder all beings"

You: I don't believe that.

You: It's not innate.

You: Hold, on

Stranger: you think its wrong to murder humans?

You: I'm still reading the rest

You: Yes. We don't eat humans.

You: Do you know what a null hypothesis is?

Stranger: name the trait or the set of traits that differentiates humans from say a cow, such that its ok to murder the cow for food but not the human?

Stranger: doesn't it have to do with falsifiability?

You: there is no use in eating a human

You: there is utility in eating a cow

You: beef can be farmed

You: humans cannot

You: therefore, humans should not be killed

You: and beef cattle can be if done ethically

Stranger: humans can be farmed. humans have been enslaved, bred, traded, and eaten throughout human history. so youre wrong on all counts

You: Nope.

You: You asked for the trait, and I stated it plainly

You: Like I said, it boils down to moral patienthood

You: Animals are not a part of society

Stranger: the trait, according to you, is the lack of utility it gives those who kill the human?

You: They should not be allowed the full rights of humans

You: The trait is nutrition, essentially.

Stranger: again you say full rights as if vegans want animals to have a right to vote or drive or buy property etc. were only wanting the right to not be killed

You: No, just freedom from unnecessary suffering

You: Animals don't heave morally.

You: All morality doesn't extend to them or it shouldn't be innately assumed. That is what I believe.

Stranger: ok so the trait is nutrition. so whether or not you know this, but there is nutritional value to eating humans. they can sustain you if needed, they can provide nutrition in the same way the flesh of animals can. now I assume youre skeptical about that because of how you phrased it before but even if you don't believe me all we would need to do is construct a hypothetical where the flesh of humans is very nutritious for us to eat, would you then stay consistent and say that its ok to murder humans for food?

You: that's beside my main point

Stranger: no you said the trait is nutrition

You: Animals don't beave morally.

You: Yes

Stranger: and Im saying if humans are nutritious then do you think its ok to murder them for food?

You: And that's a supplementary argument

Stranger: animals don't behave morally thats true, neither do infants. just because a being lacks moral agency doesn't mean we shouldn't protect it from moral agents violating its negative rights

You: My main point is that I do not believe animals have freedom from man-made death, just as you believe they do.

You: Right, infants don't

You: And that's where "broken chairs, while they aren't any good to sit on, are still chairs, not monkeys or palm trees."

You: Infants are still humans, species normality.

You: Classifications are not something rigid but something reasonable.

Stranger: so what does that mean? that because infants are a part of a human species whose norm is that of having moral agency, that you therefore should extend the right to not be killed to infants despite them not having moral agency themselves?

You: My metaethical point is that this argument is summarized as (A) believing animals should not be killed (B) believing animals can be killed.

You: Yes, they are the same classification.

You: As I just pointed out.

Stranger: so keep in mind that youre shifting then from nutrition being the trade to mora agency, is that right?

Stranger: trait*

Stranger: moral*

You: Roderick Long has another argument for infants too.

You: no

You: I'm not shifting

You: I'm getting to the main idea

You: Er, I focused on it.

You: (past tense)

You: I'm simply against unnecessary suffering.

You: I don't think death/killing an animal without them knowning

You: is suffering

You: or all that intense

Stranger: no youre also against murdering humans for food, but not animals. and youre justification for the difference entreatment is species normality which I can pick apart

You: Like I mentioned, there are ethical, quick, ways to do it.

You: No, my main argument is that they lack moral patenthood, that is supplemented by species normality.

You: Please pick apart.

You: I'm waiting.

Stranger: oh ok moral patienthood is the trait then, not nutrition is that right? so how do you know humans have moral ptienthoohd?

You: you brought up trait

You: I wouldn't call that a trait

You: It's just my main argument.

Stranger: well whatever you call it, how do you know humans have it?

You: You seem to want to go down a certain path

You: it's not about a certain trait

You: that's what I've been saying

You: Humans have moral patenthood. There is no "trait". Animals do not because they're not members of society--i.e., not morally active.

You: Farm animals don't behave morally.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml

Stranger: so are you saying being a member of society means you are necessarily morally active?

You: no, that sounds like you have to be active in politics or something

Stranger: "Animals do not because they're not members of society" how else am I supposed to interpret that then?

You: They cannot make moral decisions.

Stranger: yes I agree animals can't make moral decisions

Stranger: the way I normally phrase it is animals don't have the capacity to compare proposed action or behavior with an ideal standard

Stranger: so I want to understand your position

You: right, so then the category of humans comes into play

You: instead of a rigid definition

You: that's why I only said infant

Stranger: are you saying that if all humans lacked moral patienthood except for 1 human, then that would mean all humans would be extended the right to not be murdered? or does this have to be the norm?

Stranger: because with cows you said no cows have moral patienthood, and I agree no cows do

Stranger: but are you saying that if 1 cow did, that that would be enough?

You: that would be a new species of cow

You: alien cow

You: sure, alien cows have moral patienthood since they can morally reason

You: collectively (there still may be a few broken chairs)

Stranger: ok what about in the human context? if all humans lacked moral nationhood except for one, would that one person with moral nationhood justify extending the right to not be killed to all other non moral petienthood having humans?

Stranger: patienthood*

You: um, they wouldn't be human then

You: such a species would be an alien animal

You: alien animals don't have moral patienthood

Stranger: no of course they're human, I mean imagine a hypothetical where all humans have been killed except for like a hundred retarded humans without moral petienthood and 1 caretaker who does have moral patienthood

You: lol

You: I mean, the species as a whole can still make moral decisions. Pardon my French, but it would just take a bunch of retarded orgies until the species was back to making rational decisions

Stranger: I figured you'd go down that route, so lets make them sterile retards lol

You: dammit

You: Ask me that next century.

Stranger: well you still have an out

Stranger: you could just say that as long as one member of the species has moral nationhood, its not ok to kill any member of the species

Stranger: cows don't have any member

Stranger: so it checks out

You: ya, but...ok

You: I guess I wasn't that logically inclined.

Stranger: but then of course if that one care taker didn't exist, you'd be saying that none of those remaining retards would have that right extended to them anymore

Stranger: which is a position you can have

You: but they're as good as dinosaurs

You: in a way, their fate doesn't matter

Stranger: matter? matter to who?  in what sense do any of our lives matter? the question is should a planet of retards be granted the right to not be murdered?

You: their existence

Stranger: now if youre paying attention you could say that if only retards are on the planet, then who is going to murder them?

You: themselves

Stranger: no because they don't have moral nationhood, so they can't be expected to respect negative rights since they don't comprehend them

Stranger: but if there were another species on the planet with moral patienhood, then thats who this applies to

You: I'm saying, they are the ones killing themselves

Stranger: well they can kill themselves but thats like a lion killing a zebra. we don't place moral condemnation on the lion because the lion doesn't have moral patienthood or moral agency as I like to call it

Stranger: so in conclussion

Stranger: you can support the killing of animals if you also support the idea that in a planet full of retards, the retards would have no negative right to not be murdered my moral agents of another species

Stranger: weird hypothetical? sure

Stranger: but still fucked up lol

You: oh, I agree with it

You: who are you?

Stranger: god

You: like Ed Winters?

Stranger: who is that?

You: obviously not

You: He's a vegan activist

You: goes to the streets, talks with everyday people

Stranger: oh Ive seen others do that. Sometimes it makes me cringe though when they don't have good arguments

You: ya

Stranger: well either way its good just to get people talking

You: right

You: I'm trying to think of a different question, besides your occupation, on who you are

Stranger: lol why do you want to know about me?

You: Have you heard of Effective Altruism?

Stranger: yeah I have

Stranger: I don't support it though

Stranger: I prefer ineffective altruism

You: because no one actually talks with me like this

You: er, about this

Stranger: you mean on omegle?

You: I mean anywhere

You: talking about veganism in real life...

You: just side comments

You: nothing direct

You: or nothing real meaningful I guess

Stranger: what country are you from?

You: US

You: Do you give to a charity?

Stranger: yeah I give to charity but when I do I like knowing that the money I give does not go to the intended recipient

Stranger: sorry

You: well that's confusing

Stranger: I just think its such a pretentious term to call something 'effective X' as if all there attempts are intentionally ineffective

Stranger: all other*

You: I've thought of it being called rigorous charity

You: smart charity

You: but it's not all about charity

You: I don't think there is any way to avoid the pretentiousness of it

You: DIY altruism (article) was pretty good

You: (against EA)

You: sort of

Stranger: yeah, I guess you could own it and just be like 'yeah were calling every other kind of charity or altruism out as being shitty'