Vegetarian Discussion: Left-wing Academics' Biases Impede Full Understanding Of Morality

Left-wing Academics' Biases Impede Full Understanding Of Morality
Posts: 8

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1   (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2013-07-09 13:50:17 EST
Morality is one of the few topics in academe endowed with its own
protective spell. A biologist is not blinded by her biological nature
to the workings of biology. An economist is not confused by his own
economic activity when he tries to understand the workings of markets.
But students of morality are often biased by their own moral
commitments. Morality is so contested and so important to people that
it is often difficult to set aside one’s humanity and study morality in
a clinically detached way. One problem is that the psychological study
of morality, like psychology itself (Redding, 2001), has been dominated
by politically liberal researchers (which includes us). The lack of
moral and political diversity among researchers has led to an
inappropriate narrowing of the moral domain to issues of harm/care and
fairness/reciprocity/justice (Haidt & Graham, 2007). Morality in most
cultures (and for social conservatives in Western cultures), is in fact
much broader, including issues of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect,
and purity/sanctity (Haidt & Graham, 2007; in press).

http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Haidt2.pdf

D*@.
2013-07-10 14:52:32 EST
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:50:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
>Morality is one of the few topics in academe endowed with its own
>protective spell. A biologist is not blinded by her biological nature
>to the workings of biology. An economist is not confused by his own
>economic activity when he tries to understand the workings of markets.
>But students of morality are often biased by their own moral
>commitments. Morality is so contested and so important to people that
>it is often difficult to set aside one’s humanity and study morality in
>a clinically detached way. One problem is that the psychological study
>of morality, like psychology itself (Redding, 2001), has been dominated
>by politically liberal researchers (which includes us). The lack of
>moral and political diversity among researchers has led to an
>inappropriate narrowing of the moral domain to issues of harm/care and
>fairness/reciprocity/justice (Haidt & Graham, 2007). Morality in most
>cultures (and for social conservatives in Western cultures), is in fact
>much broader, including issues of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect,
>and purity/sanctity (Haidt & Graham, 2007; in press).

How do you want people to think that argues in favor of anticonsideration
towards the lives of domestic animals, Goo?

George Plimpton
2013-07-10 18:38:35 EST
On 7/10/2013 11:52 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:50:17 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
> .
>> Morality is one of the few topics in academe endowed with its own
>> protective spell. A biologist is not blinded by her biological nature
>> to the workings of biology. An economist is not confused by his own
>> economic activity when he tries to understand the workings of markets.
>> But students of morality are often biased by their own moral
>> commitments. Morality is so contested and so important to people that
>> it is often difficult to set aside one’s humanity and study morality in
>> a clinically detached way. One problem is that the psychological study
>> of morality, like psychology itself (Redding, 2001), has been dominated
>> by politically liberal researchers (which includes us). The lack of
>> moral and political diversity among researchers has led to an
>> inappropriate narrowing of the moral domain to issues of harm/care and
>> fairness/reciprocity/justice (Haidt & Graham, 2007). Morality in most
>> cultures (and for social conservatives in Western cultures), is in fact
>> much broader, including issues of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect,
>> and purity/sanctity (Haidt & Graham, 2007; in press).
>
> How do you want people to think that

Write in English, *Goo*.


George Plimpton
2013-07-10 23:32:17 EST
On 7/10/2013 11:52 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> anticonsideration towards the lives of domestic animals,

No such thing.


You cannot explain or define

* why the merely potential lives of non-existent livestock deserve
"consideration"
* what this "consideration" actually is
* why *you* don't give *ANY* "consideration" to animals' lives


14 years of failure. *Goo*.

D*@.
2013-07-11 18:18:23 EST
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:32:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
>On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:52:32 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:50:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>.
>>>Morality is one of the few topics in academe endowed with its own
>>>protective spell. A biologist is not blinded by her biological nature
>>>to the workings of biology. An economist is not confused by his own
>>>economic activity when he tries to understand the workings of markets.
>>>But students of morality are often biased by their own moral
>>>commitments. Morality is so contested and so important to people that
>>>it is often difficult to set aside one’s humanity and study morality in
>>>a clinically detached way. One problem is that the psychological study
>>>of morality, like psychology itself (Redding, 2001), has been dominated
>>>by politically liberal researchers (which includes us). The lack of
>>>moral and political diversity among researchers has led to an
>>>inappropriate narrowing of the moral domain to issues of harm/care and
>>>fairness/reciprocity/justice (Haidt & Graham, 2007). Morality in most
>>>cultures (and for social conservatives in Western cultures), is in fact
>>>much broader, including issues of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect,
>>>and purity/sanctity (Haidt & Graham, 2007; in press).
>>
>> How do you want people to think that argues in favor of anticonsideration
>>towards the lives of domestic animals, Goo?
>
>No such thing.

You are anti-considerate and try to demand it from others Goob. Could you
really to too stupid to know that, Goo?

>You cannot explain or define
>
> * why the merely potential lives of non-existent livestock deserve
>"consideration"

Because their lives deserve more consideration than their deaths, Goo.

> * what this "consideration" actually is

That their lives whether of positive or negative value to the animals be
given more ethical weight and consideration than their deaths, Goo.

> * why *you* don't give *ANY* "consideration" to animals' lives

You again lose by forfeit, Goo.

George Plimpton
2013-07-11 19:29:00 EST
On 7/11/2013 3:18 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 7/10/2013 8:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 7/10/2013 11:52 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> anticonsideration towards the lives of domestic animals,
>>
>> No such thing.
>
> You are anti-considerate and

No. There's no such thing. There is no "consideration" to be given to
the ethically meaningless prospect of animals "getting to experience
life," *Goo*, and *YOU* don't give any.


>
>> You cannot explain or define
>>
>> * why the merely potential lives of non-existent livestock deserve
>> "consideration"
>
> Because their lives deserve more consideration than

Circular, *Goo*. Your task, *Goo* - which you cannot do - is to explain
why their merely potential lives deserve *any* consideration at all. In
fact, their live don't deserve any.


>> * what this "consideration" actually is
>
> That their lives whether of positive or negative value to the animals be
> given more ethical weight and consideration than their deaths

No, *Goo*. That is not an explanation of what the "consideration" is,
*Goo*. You just whiffed off again. You cannot define what it is, *Goo*
- not surprising, since you don't give any.


>> * why *you* don't give *ANY* "consideration" to animals' lives
>
> You again lose by

No, I win, *Goo*. You give *NO* consideration to anything regarding the
animals' lives. You're lying when you say you do. *ALL* you care about
are the products, *Goo* - proved.


D*@.
2013-07-16 14:53:09 EST
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:29:00 -0700, Goo lied and lost by forfeit again:
.
>On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:18:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:32:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>.
>>>On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:52:32 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:50:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>.
>>>>>Morality is one of the few topics in academe endowed with its own
>>>>>protective spell. A biologist is not blinded by her biological nature
>>>>>to the workings of biology. An economist is not confused by his own
>>>>>economic activity when he tries to understand the workings of markets.
>>>>>But students of morality are often biased by their own moral
>>>>>commitments. Morality is so contested and so important to people that
>>>>>it is often difficult to set aside one’s humanity and study morality in
>>>>>a clinically detached way. One problem is that the psychological study
>>>>>of morality, like psychology itself (Redding, 2001), has been dominated
>>>>>by politically liberal researchers (which includes us). The lack of
>>>>>moral and political diversity among researchers has led to an
>>>>>inappropriate narrowing of the moral domain to issues of harm/care and
>>>>>fairness/reciprocity/justice (Haidt & Graham, 2007). Morality in most
>>>>>cultures (and for social conservatives in Western cultures), is in fact
>>>>>much broader, including issues of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect,
>>>>>and purity/sanctity (Haidt & Graham, 2007; in press).
>>>>
>>>> How do you want people to think that argues in favor of anticonsideration
>>>>towards the lives of domestic animals, Goo?
>>>
>>>No such thing.
>>
>> You are anti-considerate and try to demand it from others Goob. Could you
>>really to too stupid to know that, Goo?
>
>No. There's no such thing. There is no "consideration" to be given to
>the ethically meaningless prospect of animals "getting to experience
>life,"

There certainly is Goober, but you are too inconsiderate to even admit it
much less appreciate it.

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration. I also give the not-yet-begun lives
of animals that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a
lot of consideration" - Goo

Why did you dishonestly pretend that you were capable of consideration of
existing animals Goob? Why did you also dishonestly pretend you were capable of
consideration for the lives of future animals, Goo?

>>>You cannot explain or define
>>>
>>> * why the merely potential lives of non-existent livestock deserve
>>>"consideration"
>>
>> Because their lives deserve more consideration than their deaths, Goo.
>>
>>> * what this "consideration" actually is
>>
>> That their lives whether of positive or negative value to the animals be
>>given more ethical weight and consideration than their deaths, Goo.
>
>No

Yes, Gooberdoodle.

>, *Goo*. That is not an explanation of what the "consideration" is

Why is it you don't even know what consideration means Goob? Here's a basic
clue for you Goots: If you don't know what considerations means, you necessarily
could have no clue whether it can be applied to the lives of domestic animals or
not, Goo.

>>> * why *you* don't give *ANY* "consideration" to animals' lives
>>
>> You again lose by forfeit, Goo.
>
>No, I win, *Goo*. You give *NO* consideration to anything regarding the
>animals' lives.

You again lose by forfeit, Goo.

George Plimpton
2013-07-22 14:15:01 EST
On 7/16/2013 11:53 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 7/11/2013 4:29 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 7/11/2013 3:18 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 7/10/2013 8:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2013 11:52 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> anticonsideration towards the lives of domestic animals,
>>>>
>>>> No such thing.
>>>
>>> You are anti-considerate and
>>
>> No. There's no such thing. There is no "consideration" to be given to
>> the ethically meaningless prospect of animals "getting to experience
>> life," *Goo*, and *YOU* don't give any.
>
> There certainly is

No, *Goo*, there isn't.


> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
> of consideration. I also give the not-yet-begun lives
> of animals that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a
> lot of consideration"

*Correct*: I give consideration to the *actual* quality of life, *Goo*,
but I give *ZERO* consideration to the "getting to experience life",
*Goo*, because it is morally meaningless.

*Goo*, just stop. You lost. There is *NO* moral meaning to "getting to
experience life" vs never living, and you *know* it - you *KNOW* you
lost, *Goo*.


>>>> You cannot explain or define
>>>>
>>>> * why the merely potential lives of non-existent livestock deserve
>>>> "consideration"
>>>
>>> Because their lives deserve more consideration than
>>
>> Circular, *Goo*. Your task, *Goo* - which you cannot do - is to explain
>> why their merely potential lives deserve *any* consideration at all. In
>> fact, their live don't deserve any.
>>>
>>>> * what this "consideration" actually is
>>>
>>> That their lives whether of positive or negative value to the
>>> animals be
>>> given more ethical weight and consideration than their deaths
>>
>> No, *Goo*. That is not an explanation of what the "consideration" is,
>> *Goo*. You just whiffed off again. You cannot define what it is, *Goo*
>> - not surprising, since you don't give any.
>
> Yes,

Mo, *Goo*.


> Why is it you don't even know what consideration means

I *do* know what it means, *Goo*. That's how I know *YOU* don't give any.


>>>> * why *you* don't give *ANY* "consideration" to animals' lives
>>>
>>> You again lose by
>>
>> No, I win, *Goo*. You give *NO* consideration to anything regarding the
>> animals' lives. You're lying when you say you do. *ALL* you care about
>> are the products, *Goo* - proved.
>
> You again

I *AGAIN* defeat you, *Goo*. You admitted it.

Page: 1   (First | Last)


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