Reply to Re: PETA KILLS ANIMALS?!?!
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Someone:
"It's clear after reading your new reply to Skull you take a very different interpretation of what he said. I apply the principle of charity to interpret his argument as:
1) A system of morality should only be applied to an entity if that entity also respects that system of morality.
2) Non-human animals do not respect human morality.
Therefore human morality should not be applied to non-human animals."
Major problems with all of the above.
For starters, no...I do not apply this "principle of charity" you made up to rationalize away Skull's obvious irrational nonsense. If someone posts something that is at all ambiguous and actually COULD be sensibly taken more than one way then yeah, I will not assume the worst either. But Skull's posts do not apply here. His argument is basically:
p1 -Animals hate humans and would treat us cruelly if they were capable.
c1 - Therefore it is right for us to treat them with cruelty and aggression.
That is nonsense no matter how you slice it. The very premise he cites is false(or if you are being "charitable" then it is without rational justification).
Secondly, in regards to YOUR above argument, saying that "animals do not respect human morality" is little different than saying "Cars don't care if my kid dies...so I am going to blow up all cars I see!". Animals do not think abstractly and there ability to conceptualize morality is limited to the thoughtless(largely survival driven) instinctive behaviors such as chasing off pack members who steal food or try to eat before the alpha male.
And finally, your first premise is just silly. By that reasoning we should be slaying human babies and some retarded people as well since they do not respect human morality(and WTF IS "human morality"?!).
"There is absolutely nothing implying psychoticism.
What I said and what I stand by is that if Skull were to be believed(that he actually believes the crap he posted) then he bears the earmarks of someone who will one day get tired of killing defenseless animals and move on to killing humans. It is an almost universal trait of all psychotics and serial killers that they begin as children torturing and killing animals.
My mention of moral philosophers was not an appeal to authority.
It is a fallacy called the Appeal to Anonymous Authority. When you cite a nebulous/unspecified source as allegedly supporting your views this is exactly what you are doing. Otherwise why even mention the anonymous "moral philosophers"?!
"It was a reference to the fact that there are people who BELIEVE in the argument and are not and do not become psychotic."
Largely irrelevant since my point was NOT that anyone advocating a stupid irrational belief becomes a psychotic.
"You obviously do not follow the principle of charity to both interpret Skull's argument in the worst possible way and to misinterpret my argument as a standard fallacy. From this and your recent reply to Skull, it appears you are just interested in winning debates.
?!
No...I try to lose as many debates as I can of course. I mean who doesn't? Obviously YOU are not so foolish as to be trying to win THIS debate now are you?
Think before you type kiddo.
"It's clear after reading your new reply to Skull you take a very different interpretation of what he said. I apply the principle of charity to interpret his argument as:
1) A system of morality should only be applied to an entity if that entity also respects that system of morality.
2) Non-human animals do not respect human morality.
Therefore human morality should not be applied to non-human animals."
Major problems with all of the above.
For starters, no...I do not apply this "principle of charity" you made up to rationalize away Skull's obvious irrational nonsense. If someone posts something that is at all ambiguous and actually COULD be sensibly taken more than one way then yeah, I will not assume the worst either. But Skull's posts do not apply here. His argument is basically:
p1 -Animals hate humans and would treat us cruelly if they were capable.
c1 - Therefore it is right for us to treat them with cruelty and aggression.
That is nonsense no matter how you slice it. The very premise he cites is false(or if you are being "charitable" then it is without rational justification).
Secondly, in regards to YOUR above argument, saying that "animals do not respect human morality" is little different than saying "Cars don't care if my kid dies...so I am going to blow up all cars I see!". Animals do not think abstractly and there ability to conceptualize morality is limited to the thoughtless(largely survival driven) instinctive behaviors such as chasing off pack members who steal food or try to eat before the alpha male.
And finally, your first premise is just silly. By that reasoning we should be slaying human babies and some retarded people as well since they do not respect human morality(and WTF IS "human morality"?!).
"There is absolutely nothing implying psychoticism.
What I said and what I stand by is that if Skull were to be believed(that he actually believes the crap he posted) then he bears the earmarks of someone who will one day get tired of killing defenseless animals and move on to killing humans. It is an almost universal trait of all psychotics and serial killers that they begin as children torturing and killing animals.
My mention of moral philosophers was not an appeal to authority.
It is a fallacy called the Appeal to Anonymous Authority. When you cite a nebulous/unspecified source as allegedly supporting your views this is exactly what you are doing. Otherwise why even mention the anonymous "moral philosophers"?!
"It was a reference to the fact that there are people who BELIEVE in the argument and are not and do not become psychotic."
Largely irrelevant since my point was NOT that anyone advocating a stupid irrational belief becomes a psychotic.
"You obviously do not follow the principle of charity to both interpret Skull's argument in the worst possible way and to misinterpret my argument as a standard fallacy. From this and your recent reply to Skull, it appears you are just interested in winning debates.
?!
No...I try to lose as many debates as I can of course. I mean who doesn't? Obviously YOU are not so foolish as to be trying to win THIS debate now are you?
Think before you type kiddo.
