Walk_blesseD

AI slop

Have fun! I really like the voices he does.

Don’t talk about “the original” unless you read the books (or listened to the audiobooks—they’re read by David Tennant and it’s great)

disengage

there is no reason to suppose eating animals is bad

Sure there is: it causes suffering that can easily be avoided by not doing that.

Fine, we’ll put aside the accusation of solipsism for a moment and come back to this:

By the same token, there’s no way that you can prove to me that you understand personal mortality. If, for the sake of argument, I were to point a loaded firearm at you and you were to attack me, attempt to flee, beg for your life, whatever, there’s no way you could prove to me that your actions are motivated by a subjective will to not die: for all I know you might just be acting very convincingly like someone who understands mortality without actually having any interiority whatsoever.
However, there is social utility in assuming that others are capable of understanding abstract concepts when they perform actions in accordance with such an understanding. And from the fact that most animals will try to avoid things that they can reasonably understand will cause them death (natural predators, environmental hazards, anything that has caused them injury), we can likewise extrapolate that they don’t want to die.

You’ven’t made any meaningful rebuttal of anything I’ve said here. This is why it’s easy to assume you’re arguing in bad faith: I’ll clearly state my position and explain my reasoning, and then you’ll just come along and hit me with the “nuh-uh,” and refuse to elaborate. At my insistence that you justify your own position, you’ve so far given me “but different things are different,” and “but it’s normal tho.”
In the case of the former, I have explained why in the context of this discussion the different things are actually quite similar in the way that actually matters here. And given that you appear to hold sincerely leftist beliefs on every topic except animal liberation, I really hope I don’t have to explain to you how “but it’s normal tho,” has been used to defend countless atrocities, historical and present, and as such I shan’t accept it as a justification.

It’s almost as though you’re completely disregarding the context and the scope of my previous response because you’re arguing in bad faith.
Yes, I can accept that different things are different and this will sometimes mean that it’s okay to accordingly act differently, but sometimes different things have similarities and you’re here arguing for discriminatory treatment in the context where they’re actually not that different. Whales, lions, sheep and humans alike have a drive for self-preservation. Thus, they should similarly be allowed to live without being killed in cold blood by those who are capable of knowing better than to inflict needless suffering.
I have stated my reasoning again and again. It is on you to provide a justification for the discrepancy you’re here supporting.

> Puts a bullet in you
> bystanders freaking out
> not to worry, I have the perfect justification prepared
> “Oh nonono it’s ok, they just don’t have any sort of consciousness. it’s not solipsism. it [email protected] behavioural study.”
> nailedit.jpg

In the sense that they both have a drive for self-preservation that I believe ought to be respected where no immediate threat to wellbeing exists, yes actually, I would treat a whale like a lion and simply not murder either of them for food. In fact, in my everyday life, I do treat them exactly the same because I have exactly zero interactions with either.

What a solipsistic take. By the same token, there’s no way that you can prove to me that you understand personal mortality. If, for the sake of argument, I were to point a loaded firearm at you and you were to attack me, attempt to flee, beg for your life, whatever, there’s no way you could prove to me that your actions are motivated by a subjective will to not die: for all I know you might just be acting very convincingly like someone who understands mortality without actually having any interiority whatsoever.
However, there is social utility in assuming that others are capable of understanding abstract concepts when they perform actions in accordance with such an understanding. And from the fact that most animals will try to avoid things that they can reasonably understand will cause them death (natural predators, environmental hazards, anything that has caused them injury), we can likewise extrapolate that they don’t want to die.

This just seems more like a troll than anything.

Treating people like animals is only bad because you’re arbitrarily presupposing that animals are worthy of lesser treatment. You do understand that, right?
And like, what’s your well-reasoned moral philosophical justification as to why it’s okay to kill sentient beings that don’t want to be killed, and why does it distinguish between humans and other animals???