Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Sheesh, this dude's arrogance is driving me nuts. I honestly don't think the insults are necessary. bimstone, do you still think that there's hope?
He's too committed now that he made that video. He literally can not change his mind now, it would be too embarrassing for him.
I can ask him to talk one on one, which is probably the only possibility, but I doubt he will accept.
Who was that facebook poster who knew about the Flat-Earth thread?
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:47 pmWho was that facebook poster who knew about the Flat-Earth thread?
Probably a lurker. Would be interesting to know why he disagrees with you on this.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:47 pm
He's too committed now that he made that video. He literally can not change his mind now, it would be too embarrassing for him.
I can ask him to talk one on one, which is probably the only possibility, but I doubt he will accept.
Yerp, should still make a response video to reach people on advocacy, that's the main point for me, show the history of the name a trait argument and where 1 on 1 outreach and debates with audiences can go in the future. Not just screaming arbitrary or nihilist at people.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:47 pmWho was that facebook poster who knew about the Flat-Earth thread?
Probably a lurker. Would be interesting to know why he disagrees with you on this.
I'm very curious too. Of course I always want to know if there's something I overlooked, or a way to improve.
Maybe somebody with Facebook can invite him or her to discuss it here (does Facebook work like that, or can you only send messages to people in your circle?).
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:27 amI'm very curious too. Of course I always want to know if there's something I overlooked, or a way to improve.
Maybe somebody with Facebook can invite him or her to discuss it here (does Facebook work like that, or can you only send messages to people in your circle?).
I can send him a message via Messenger. Do you know the Facebook page where he made the comment?
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
Jason Andrew Albano
Having lurked their forum since it was "The Vegan Atheist Forum," back in like 2015, I came to really respect brimstoneSalad (the admin). He seems very worldly, and is quite competent in arguing on a variety of subjects. He even argued a flat earther back to reality, which practically makes him a miracle worker.
In this case, though, I must agree with you. I don't see how it would be beneficial to complicate your argument to this degree. On Twitter, he prefaces his version of the argument with assertions that you're twisting logic and being dishonest, which is uncharitable BS. Probably just an attempt to goad you into responding.
Isaac Brown
Well he's getting his wish, I am going to absolutely decimate him tomorrow, and it shall remain on the internet as a medal of embarrassment for all of time.
Jason Andrew Albano
So am I; I've wanted to see you two match wits for a long time. Didn't imagine that it would go down like this, though!
Isaac Brown
There is nothing to match, it's child's play. I don't need to sit there typing up essays like this dunce, I'll literally rip a dab, hop on livestream, and wreck his entire position on one read through. Guy couldn't even remotely keep pace or stay on point in our live chat.
Theo Slade
Jason Andrew Albano Yo, I've gone to blows with him on the forum over everything from virtue ethics and existentialism to cat ownership and intersectionality, it's all in good sport, if you ever want to remark on a discussion you found interesting we'd be glad to hear it, especially when you disagree.
Hello everyone, so I want to provide my thoughts on the recent debate between brimstoneSalad and Ask Yourself. I hope that this is the right place to do so.
So if I understand this right, brimstoneSalad has criticized Ask Yourself's argument for animal moral value. brimstoneSalad's criticism is that the conclusion of his argument does not follow from its premises, and that the argument cannot always demonstrate inconsistency in the moral position of someone who has accepted the premises.
brimstoneSalad has already spelled out the problems with #namethetrait in great length, and provided ideas for modifications that would make it work better. I'd like to make a brief summary of brimstoneSalad's criticisms here to show my understanding of it. After all, for people who are undecided on who has the correct position (b.S. or A.Y.), I think it might be helpful if others show their insights on it.
Ask Yourself's argument for animal moral value is as follows:
P1: Humans are of moral value.
P2: There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
C: Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless.
brimstoneSalad's criticisms of this argument, as I understand them, are as follows:
Regarding P1: Someone who believes in human moral value (let's call him Bob) might not consider it to be based upon any trait. Bob does not necessarily need to differentiate humans and other animals, upon trait(s) present in one group but not the other, in order to hold a consistent position on this.
Regarding P2: Bob might also accept this premise, but doing so would not necessarily prove that he's contradicting himself. Not if his differential treatment (of humans and animals) is not based upon a trait present in one group but absent in the other.
Regarding C: Bob's inability to establish a trait absent in animals (which if absent in humans would cause him to deem humans valueless) does not necessarily demonstrate that he's inconsistent. Bob could say that human lives have moral value because he cares for them, while animal lives do not have moral value because he does not care for them. He could then go on to admit (with full honesty) that if he did not care for human lives, that he would then not regard any of them as having moral value. Thus, he's consistent. Ask Yourself's conclusion does not follow from his two premises (which Bob accepted).
Ask Yourself might try to counter Bob's argument by saying:
"Bob, if I sliced open your throat, and immediately beforehand told you that I don't care for your life, would you then accept this as a justification for me murdering you? I'm guessing you'd say no to this, and so you're contradicting yourself by using "I don't care" as a justification for killing animals, but rejecting the exact same justification applied to you."
If Ask Yourself said something like this, it actually would not expose any true contradiction in Bob's reasoning.
1. True contradiction:
"It's morally OK to kill animals, because I, Bob, don't care for their lives"
"It's morally wrong to kill humans, even if I, Bob, don't care for their lives"
2. Not a true contradiction:
"It's morally OK to kill animals, because I, Bob, don't care for their lives"
"It's morally wrong for A.Y. to kill humans, even if he, A.Y., doesn't care for their lives"
#1 is a true contradiction because Bob is using one justification for killing animals, and then rejecting the exact same justification for killing humans.
#2 is not a true contradiction because Bob is using one justification for killing animals, and then rejecting a different justification for killing humans.
The justifications are different because the first is based upon Bob's caring, while the second is based upon Ask Yourself's caring. Bob has arbitrarily decided to base moral worth upon his own caring for others, and not Ask Yourself's caring. Within Bob's own personal subjective moral code, where he is the determining authority, he is consistent. His judgments are abirtrary, yes, but not inconsistent.
People like Bob can accept the first two premises of Ask Yourself's argument for animal moral value, but still not have the conclusion apply to them. They need only make arbitrary distinctions between which group (humans) has moral value and which group (nonhuman-animals) does not.
Thus, in order for Ask Yourself's argument to demonstrate inconsistency in people's differential treatment of humans and animals, it must first include a premise that morality must not be arbitrary (susceptible to random choices and/or personal whims).
That's why brimstoneSalad has suggested modifications to Ask Yourself's argument for animal moral value. Unfortunately, Ask Yourself does not take kindly to constructive criticism like this, and would prefer to blow it off as being unnecessarily cumbersome and complicated (without properly demonstrating an understanding of the whole "contradictory vs. abitrary" issue; the very reason for the suggested modifications).
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
Lightningman_42 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:26 pm
I'd like to make a brief summary of brimstoneSalad's criticisms here to show my understanding of it. After all, for people who are undecided on who has the correct position (b.S. or A.Y.), I think it might be helpful if others show their insights on it.
Your understanding is correct, and It's good to have somebody explaining it in a little different way.
Do you think you could reply in that thread to Gray Sloth?
Lightningman_42 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:26 pm
I'd like to make a brief summary of brimstoneSalad's criticisms here to show my understanding of it. After all, for people who are undecided on who has the correct position (b.S. or A.Y.), I think it might be helpful if others show their insights on it.
Your understanding is correct, and It's good to have somebody explaining it in a little different way.
Do you think you could reply in that thread to Gray Sloth?
I'd like to, but not right now. It's midnight, and I'm going to bed now. Goodnight.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
