Vegetarian Discussion: Another Argument

Another Argument
Posts: 20

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2008-07-18 23:16:21 EST
Perhaps it will help to move the discussion forward to consider
another argument. This argument is also deductively valid in first-
order logic. I won't bother to formalise it this time because Dutch
seems to think that's something that only snake-oil salesmen do.

(p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:


(1) A believes that some set of individuals S has right against a set
of moral agents
T that they not act in a certain way
(2) A can avoid being financally complicit in the set of agents T
acting in this way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
committing any comparable moral wrong, while accepting a burden no
greater than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation
becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity
(3) A is financially complicit in the set of agents T acting in that
way.


Then A is a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite.

(p2) Rupert is a moral agent.

(p3) Rupert believes that animals in crop fields have a right against
famers that they not cause them to suffer and die by engaging in plant-
based agriculture.

(p4) Rupert can avoid being financially complicit in farmers causing
animals in crop fields to suffer and die by engaging in plant-based
agriculture, without thereby becoming complicit in or committing any
comparable mnoral wrong, while accepting a burden no greater than that
incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation becoming fully
self-sufficient in food and electricity

(p5) Rupert buys the products of commercial plant-based agriculture.

(p6) If Rupert buys the products of commercial plant-based
agriculture, then Rupert is financially complicit in farmers causing
animals in crop fields to suffer and die by engaging in plant-based
agriculture.

(c7) Rupert is a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite.

This argument is deductively valid. If all the premises are true, then
it is sound and the conclusion must be true as well. But is it sound?
Maybe one of the premises is wrong. Of course, the conclusion might
still happen to be true.

So, is the argument sound? Ball? Dutch? Anyone?

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-19 02:03:24 EST
Rupert wrote:
> Perhaps it will help to move the discussion forward to consider
> another argument. This argument is also deductively valid in first-
> order logic. I won't bother to formalise it this time because Dutch
> seems to think that's something that only snake-oil salesmen do.
>
> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:

So you can't be 'A'.

Rupert
2008-07-19 02:58:27 EST
On Jul 19, 2:03 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > Perhaps it will help to move the discussion forward to consider
> > another argument. This argument is also deductively valid in first-
> > order logic. I won't bother to formalise it this time because Dutch
> > seems to think that's something that only snake-oil salesmen do.
>
> > (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
>
> So you can't be 'A'.

You say I'm not a moral agent?

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-19 14:57:55 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2:03 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> Perhaps it will help to move the discussion forward to consider
>>> another argument. This argument is also deductively valid in first-
>>> order logic. I won't bother to formalise it this time because Dutch
>>> seems to think that's something that only snake-oil salesmen do.
>>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
>> So you can't be 'A'.
>
> You say I'm not a moral agent?

Is English not your native tongue?

Rupert
2008-07-19 18:23:40 EST
On Jul 20, 2:57 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 2:03 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> Perhaps it will help to move the discussion forward to consider
> >>> another argument. This argument is also deductively valid in first-
> >>> order logic. I won't bother to formalise it this time because Dutch
> >>> seems to think that's something that only snake-oil salesmen do.
> >>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
> >> So you can't be 'A'.
>
> > You say I'm not a moral agent?
>
> Is English not your native tongue?

Okay, so you're saying (p2) is wrong. That's interesting.

If English is your native tongue, then you should realise that a moral
agent is not the same as a morally good agent. A moral agent is an
individual who has some rudimentary grasp of moral concepts, and can
be held morally accountable for his or her actions, such as a typical
human adult, a six-year-old child, or (possibly to some extent) a
gorilla. If you're saying I'm not a moral agent, then you're saying
that I'm like a baby or a cat, I can't be held morally accountable for
my actions. So in that case I guess you'd better retract your claim
that I'm a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-19 21:45:43 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:57 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 19, 2:03 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps it will help to move the discussion forward to consider
>>>>> another argument. This argument is also deductively valid in first-
>>>>> order logic. I won't bother to formalise it this time because Dutch
>>>>> seems to think that's something that only snake-oil salesmen do.
>>>>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
>>>> So you can't be 'A'.
>>> You say I'm not a moral agent?
>> Is English not your native tongue?
>
> Okay,

Okay.

Rupert
2008-07-19 23:02:49 EST
On Jul 20, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 2:57 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 19, 2:03 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> Perhaps it will help to move the discussion forward to consider
> >>>>> another argument. This argument is also deductively valid in first-
> >>>>> order logic. I won't bother to formalise it this time because Dutch
> >>>>> seems to think that's something that only snake-oil salesmen do.
> >>>>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
> >>>> So you can't be 'A'.
> >>> You say I'm not a moral agent?
> >> Is English not your native tongue?
>
> > Okay,
>
> Okay.

You really like posting completely meaningless blabber, don't you?

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-19 23:57:04 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 20, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 2:57 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 19, 2:03 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> Perhaps it will help to move the discussion forward to consider
>>>>>>> another argument. This argument is also deductively valid in first-
>>>>>>> order logic. I won't bother to formalise it this time because Dutch
>>>>>>> seems to think that's something that only snake-oil salesmen do.
>>>>>>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
>>>>>> So you can't be 'A'.
>>>>> You say I'm not a moral agent?
>>>> Is English not your native tongue?
>>> Okay,
>> Okay.
>
> You really like posting

Not as much as bicycling or playing baseball with my son - something
you'll never know - but posting is moderately enjoyable.

Rupert
2008-07-20 04:17:30 EST
On Jul 20, 11:57 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 20, 2:57 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 19, 2:03 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> Perhaps it will help to move the discussion forward to consider
> >>>>>>> another argument. This argument is also deductively valid in first-
> >>>>>>> order logic. I won't bother to formalise it this time because Dutch
> >>>>>>> seems to think that's something that only snake-oil salesmen do.
> >>>>>>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
> >>>>>> So you can't be 'A'.
> >>>>> You say I'm not a moral agent?
> >>>> Is English not your native tongue?
> >>> Okay,
> >> Okay.
>
> > You really like posting
>
> Not as much as bicycling or playing baseball with my son - something
> you'll never know - but posting is moderately enjoyable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jolly good.

I'll probably never know your son, no, but I used to spend quality
time with my younger sister when she was a child and I sometimes hang
out with my younger cousins, and I may well have a child of my own one
day.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-21 01:22:31 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 20, 11:57 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 20, 2:57 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2:03 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it will help to move the discussion forward to consider
>>>>>>>>> another argument. This argument is also deductively valid in first-
>>>>>>>>> order logic. I won't bother to formalise it this time because Dutch
>>>>>>>>> seems to think that's something that only snake-oil salesmen do.
>>>>>>>>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
>>>>>>>> So you can't be 'A'.
>>>>>>> You say I'm not a moral agent?
>>>>>> Is English not your native tongue?
>>>>> Okay,
>>>> Okay.
>>> You really like posting
>> Not as much as bicycling or playing baseball with my son - something
>> you'll never know - but posting is moderately enjoyable.
>
> Jolly good.

You pompous cunt.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron