RE: Vegans: Moronic Uneducated Cunts?

[The6thMessenger]

And therein lies the problem. I did not argue the philosophical side, i argued the anthropological and the sociological side. Also has something to do with Psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores

You stated explicitly "As for the morality and consequences." Ethics is the study of good and bad, and is squarely within the school of philosophy. we ask not what do humans think? But rather, what ought we do? I would go as far as to say if you are addressing the morality and consequences you ought to ask the second question, not the first.

p.s. Its good form on this forum to quote the minimum amount required to advise the reader on what your addressing.

Raping is generally a crime, while eating meat is generally not. In itself doesn't really tell what is right or wrong, but assuming that we take account of international law of human rights, it is a question moral codes or rather which is right or wrong, and Rape is already generally accepted to be a crime and direct abuse of human rights, while eating meat is not.

Rather than let lawmakers and the general public dictate to you what is right or wrong, why not let the consequences of the action decide its moral value?

I don't know what to tell you, i was just responding to this. He said "Moral" and "Consequence", and that's what i remember to point what i was going to respond to. Why are you people so nit-picky on words, instead of following the damn context?

Besides, like i said i am not arguing with philosophy, i'm arguing with Antrophology, Sociology and Psychology.

If you don't know the problem, is why on earth he thinks that "Rape" fits the thing i said. But based on the taboo of our general culture, he should know that rape is not applicable by common sense, because Rape is tabooed and considered bad already and shouldn't be compromisable by commonsense, while meat eating and the means to do it is not... yet.

[bobo0100]

Besides, like i said i am not arguing with philosophy, i'm arguing with Antrophology, Sociology and Psychology.

"Cognitive Dissonance" other people say for eating meat of live-stock but saving a poor beached shark, but i think really it has something to do with culture, what is taboo or not. Cognitive Dissonance might be possible, or simply eating non-standard meat is taboo to a certain society that is why it is frowned upon.

Although I'm not TVA in defending his views I must assume an accurate understanding of them. In the video I do not believe TVA was referring to the emotion of cognitive dissidence as much as he was referring to the idea of cognitive dissidence. This is not to say the persons would have experienced anything because of there consumption of flesh. This is only to say that saving the shark and eating the cow is a view of mortality that is inconsistent. This is far from the first time TVA has spent more time explaining what he means by something than he does making the statement in the first place. A practice that could be avoided with more careful wording.

However this criticism does not only apply to TVA. Confusion could have been avoided if you where to explicitly specify between persons moral experiences and ethics as studied in the field of philosophy. On top of the same critique would be applicable to most everyone, ambiguity is a defect of the English language.

[The6thMessenger]

Although I'm not TVA in defending his views I must assume an accurate understanding of them. In the video I do not believe TVA was referring to the emotion of cognitive dissidence as much as he was referring to the idea of cognitive dissidence. This is not to say the persons would have experienced anything because of there consumption of flesh. This is only to say that saving the shark and eating the cow is a view of mortality that is inconsistent. This is far from the first time TVA has spent more time explaining what he means by something than he does making the statement in the first place. A practice that could be avoided with more careful wording.

Sure, but like i said again, this can be expected by understanding the taboos of a culture. Shark is simply not food material in general, than meat from livestock.

Moralities of certain person need not to be declared "inconsistent", if they are willing to slaughter livestock for food yet trying to save a beached whale or shark, simply because of certain cultures, practices, moralities and shit might encompass specific things, instead of general and vague ones.

Basically, while TVA somewhat sees the animals as inseparable whole like generalizing them in a rigid description, but our current culture might have divided it to what is and isn't food animal, which itself a specific distinction.

It's like "Murderers are scum." vs "Murderers who kill for petty reason are scum.", with the latter having specific description allowing exceptions. The person/society might believe the latter, yet people like TVA charge them for the former, that is why people like him sees it inconsistent.

Really, it has something to do with psychology, sociology, and anthropology as well than just philosophy. I take account of many sources, because i have general dislike of absolutes, and philosophy deals with absolutes, yet morality is subjective and changing, especially with respect to cultures and societies between one another, this is why i don't argue with philosophy alone.

However this criticism does not only apply to TVA. Confusion could have been avoided if you where to explicitly specify between persons moral experiences and ethics as studied in the field of philosophy. On top of the same critique would be applicable to most everyone, ambiguity is a defect of the English language.

You can also read the conversation in context. But yes, English is messed up.

[bobo0100]

Basically, while TVA somewhat sees the animals as inseparable whole like generalizing them in a rigid description, but our current culture might have divided it to what is and isn't food animal, which itself a specific distinction.

I doubt TVA sees it like this, he is more likely to categorize by moral patients or not moral patients. he would see the persons saving the shark's views as inconsistent because both the shark and the cow are equally capable of being moral patients, they can both suffer.

Really, it has something to do with psychology, sociology, and anthropology as well than just philosophy. I take account of many sources, because i have general dislike of absolutes, and philosophy deals with absolutes, yet morality is subjective and changing, especially with respect to cultures and societies between one another, this is why i don't argue with philosophy alone.

Is this going to be one of those annoying conversations where someone explicitly states they are not commenting on mortality in order to prevent rebuttals and conversation on that topic, and than continues to comment on morality?

Sociology is descriptive. Sociology can deal with how people think, that is exactly what it deals with. but moral philosophy is prescriptive, so when it comes to question's of ought, philosophers are the experts we turn to.

your context of the term "cognitive dissonance" is based on the sociological perspective and is descriptive. The context in which I believe TVA uses the term is prescriptive. It comments on the actions of the shark's saviour and deems it inconsistent given an objective understanding of morally in which food animals and wild animals are equally capable of being moral patients.

From a sociological perspective I would agree that it is unlikely that the saviour experienced any feeling of cognitive dissonance.

Mortality is not subjective and changing, persons understanding of moral actions are subjective and changing. Not only this but they can be wrong. The words of Sam Harris comes to mind "you can have your opinions about mortality, and you can be wrong about your opinions of mortality."

Also I disagree with your statement that "philosophy deals with absolutes"

There will of course be over lap with other areas of thought, in fact overlap with other areas of thought is to be encouraged.

You can also read the conversation in context. But yes, English is messed up.

The context still leaves room for ambiguity, especially when you keep contradicting yourself.

[The6thMessenger]

Basically, while TVA somewhat sees the animals as inseparable whole like generalizing them in a rigid description, but our current culture might have divided it to what is and isn't food animal, which itself a specific distinction.

I doubt TVA sees it like this, he is more likely to categorize by moral patients or not moral patients. he would see the persons saving the shark's views as inconsistent because both the shark and the cow are equally capable of being moral patients, they can both suffer.

Yes, but the one that holds beliefs are the people. And if they are said to have inconsistent beliefs, shouldn't they be the focus?

Really, it has something to do with psychology, sociology, and anthropology as well than just philosophy. I take account of many sources, because i have general dislike of absolutes, and philosophy deals with absolutes, yet morality is subjective and changing, especially with respect to cultures and societies between one another, this is why i don't argue with philosophy alone.

Is this going to be one of those annoying conversations where someone explicitly states they are not commenting on mortality in order to prevent rebuttals and conversation on that topic, and than continues to comment on morality?

Depends, it's not really about justifying anything, it's explaining things.

Sociology is descriptive. Sociology can deal with how people think, that is exactly what it deals with. but moral philosophy is prescriptive, so when it comes to question's of ought, philosophers are the experts we turn to.

your context of the term "cognitive dissonance" is based on the sociological perspective and is descriptive. The context in which I believe TVA uses the term is prescriptive. It comments on the actions of the shark's saviour and deems it inconsistent given an objective understanding of morally in which food animals and wild animals are equally capable of being moral patients.

Sure, but then then if its the question of whether their beliefs are consistent or not, shouldn't we examine exactly what they believe, not what they should believe?

But that doesn't really work, if there is a clear definite categorization of what can and can't be eaten based on the taboos of their culture.

Mortality is not subjective and changing, persons understanding of moral actions are subjective and changing. Not only this but they can be wrong. The words of Sam Harris comes to mind "you can have your opinions about mortality, and you can be wrong about your opinions of mortality."

I don't know what to tell you, morality is a human concept, there is no morality in nature. Something like murder of another human being is societal, its entirely possible that it could be deemed as acceptable even on what seems to be unreasonable. And just as well, societies can change what they deem right and wrong.

Okay, sure persons' understanding of moral actions are subjective and changing. What we define as "moral" is usually acceptable and "right" as we define it, "morality" is anchored to it, i have to say it is changing and subjective. Morality after all is the distinction between right and wrong, and how we define right and wrong changes, according to many factors that is.

Also I disagree with your statement that "philosophy deals with absolutes"

There will of course be over lap with other areas of thought, in fact overlap with other areas of thought is to be encouraged.

Ok

You can also read the conversation in context. But yes, English is messed up.

The context still leaves room for ambiguity, especially when you keep contradicting yourself.

Like how?