Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:12 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
While I neither share the OP's views nor his dietary practices, one can argue for it not being fallacious if one can demonstrate that to eschew meat is consistent with some moral imperative of ours. Of course getting people to agree about the method (let alone the particulars) of determining our moral imperatives is an impossible task...

But can't you see a deontological argument for vegetarianism? Can't you see a utilitarian argument for it? The attempt can be made without inherent fallacy. Not that that has been accomplished in this thread, but it IS possible.


I can see a lot of arguments. But the intent of this thread was not to provide an argument but to list presumably "higher level views." There's no argument in the OP. It's just a drawing-a-line-in-the-sand between markedly different areas of thought.

Sure it IS possible, but that is not the intent of this thread. This thread says "We are of an 'high level view' and if you agree, you will be of a high level view too." It's hardly about vegetarianism's cogency or validity. It presumes it. This thread commits the fallacy of leading question and "many-questions" ("many-assertions").

All you can really respond to this thread with is "My my, where to begin?"

This thread's OP says nothing more than, in a high brow fashion, "Vegetarianism is a theory that some people agree with and have said things about (directly or indirectly)."

It's a phenomena that so many here decided to start arguing for or against vegetarianism (and into various other topics such as what justification is). This (social) effect should be studied or remarked upon in another thread.

This thread is equivalent to screaming "Obama! Discuss!" in a liberal arts college and watching the riots and tangents ensue.
 
MJA
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:19 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
"

Truth is a process achieved through human consciousness, and it has no relevance outside that domain. We, from our individual spots in the universe, observe reality. How many realities are there?


ONE


How many descriptions of reality are there?


ZILLIONS


Does your description correspond to reality? If it does, it is "true" and if it doesn't then it is inaccurate. A truth, therefore describes reality.


Now, are there universal truths and personal truths? Nope. Because there is only one reality, there are only true (accurate) statements about it and inaccurate statements about it (which isn't to say a true statement can only be said one way). Are there aspects of reality that are universally the same? Some say there are but it is hard to know because no one can go every possible place that exists to check.



Dear Les,

What do you mean by all of this?
Thanks

=
MJA
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:19 pm
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles;54447 wrote:
The original poster has a proposition?


Yep. Forget the proper or improper aspects of his post, and basically he asks if not eating meat is in some way a "higher" road to take.

The discussion has meandered, but there have been interesting points made. That's why this thread is unusually long, with lots of people following it (if we can believe the numbers). So your quick write off doesn't do the effort put into all the thinking here justice.

nerdfiles;54447 wrote:
It's pretty obvious that if someone obviously doesn't read an entire thread that person cannot appear intellectually superior. Really, cut it out with that. I'm not trying to appear intellectually superior; if anything, I made my point unclear, which isn't a mark of intellectual strength at all. Judge my arguments on their own merit and leave the name-calling to the lay person.


Well, I still think you should cut out your superior act. Why didn't you read the entire thread? A true scholar (or scholar aspirant) would, or at least skim it to see what's been said. It seems like you think you can just glance at one aspect and then leap to conclusions. A capable intellect doesn't equal wisdom and effective reflection.
 
MJA
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:25 pm
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles wrote:
The whole premise of this thread makes it fallacious. It's a red herring whether a view is "higher level view," whatever that is supposed to mean. A view is not valid because (many) people praise it or because praiseworthy people follow it. And the view certainly is not any more or less true on these bases.

Validity and truth do share this common ground. Truth and validity are of no concern, as far as I can see, to this thread, but rather social demarcation and popularity are the concern here.


[CENTER]"The highest realms of thought
are impossible to reach
without first attaining
an understanding of compassion."

SOCRATES (469-399 B.C.)
Greek philosopher and teacher

[/CENTER]
Socrates would have snickered at your assessment too.

=
MJA
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:26 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
Yep. Forget the proper or improper aspects of his post, and basically he asks if not eating meat is in some way a "higher" road to take.

The discussion has meandered, but there have been interesting points made. That's why this thread is unusually long, with lots of people following it (if we can believe the numbers). So your quick write off doesn't do the effort put into all the thinking here justice.



Well, I still think you should cut out your superior act. Why didn't you read the entire thread? A true scholar (or scholar aspirant) would, or at least skim it to see what's been said. It seems like you think you can just glance at one aspect and then leap to conclusions. A capable intellect doesn't equal wisdom and effective reflection.


...

I just made it clear that I was responding to the first post. Why didn't I read the whole thread? Because I was responding to the first post. Do I need to read the entire thread to respond to the first post when my respond is contained to the first post? You judged it as being about the entire thread. I tried to clarify that it was not.

You seem to have failed to understand what my post was directed at. It was directed at the first post. Had I responded first would I be "leaping to a conclusion"?

Quote:
basically he asks if not eating meat is in some way a "higher" road to take.
That's your interpretation. It doesn't deter me from my own. I still think the point of this thread is to rally quotes and friends. It doesn't change the fact, however, that the OP presumes it is a higher level view. Since he's failed to provide an argument for it in the first post, I think it perfectly fair to point out the leading question.

And by the way, putting all that stuff in bold was to show that I was not acting superior and could not by any serious onlooker. So in my mind, I cannot "cut it out" because I didn't do it in the first place. I provided my argument for why I didn't. Until you refute it, it should stand that you are unjustifiably ridiculing me.
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:27 pm
@MJA,
MJA;54450 wrote:
Dear Les,

What do you mean by all of this?
Thanks

=
MJA


LOL! I wonder what you are like . . . are you an alien? Come on, fess up. :cool:

Look, all that exists is reality. If humans were not here to interpret, all that exists would still exist.

We humans, as consciousness, look at what exists and give it names, give it interpretations, develop philosophies about it, and so on.

But no matter what we say, what exists remains as it is. Reality is what it is. So there is ONE reality, there is ONE situation of existence.

But there are billions of human consciousnesses trying to interpret and describe and define that which exists; and each human has many, many interpretations of reality . . .zillions!

So there is ONE reality or ONE situation of existence . . .

. . . and then in the realm of consciousness, there are vast numbers of interpretations, descriptions, theories, etc. about that ONE reality.
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:34 pm
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles;54453I wrote:
still think the point of this thread is to rally quotes and friends. It doesn't change the fact, however, that the OP presumes it is a higher level view. Since he's failed to provide an argument for it in the first post, I think it perfectly fair to point out the leading question.


Ahhhh, well you might be right there. But so what? The thread has taken far more interesting turns since his OP, so it seems a bit obtuse to ignore the best parts to address a self-serving or naive view (which you don't respect much anyway). My point is, read up, follow the discussion, give us comments in line with what has been ferreted out.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:34 pm
@MJA,
Which probably explains why this thread is so long. Now we're entertaining assertions about metaphysics. Isn't there a rule that moderators follow which is supposed to "cut" threads up?
 
MJA
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:36 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
While I neither share the OP's views nor his dietary practices, one can argue for it not being fallacious if one can demonstrate that to eschew meat is consistent with some moral imperative of ours. Of course getting people to agree about the method (let alone the particulars) of determining our moral imperatives is an impossible task...

But can't you see a deontological argument for vegetarianism? Can't you see a utilitarian argument for it? The attempt can be made without inherent fallacy. Not that that has been accomplished in this thread, but it IS possible.


Sorry to differ Aedes, but a simple truth beyond arguement has been made on this thread many times, It looks simply like this: =
One cannot argue against the moral good right or truth of equality, and that's the proof!
I rest my case.:bigsmile:

=
MJA
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:37 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
Ahhhh, well you might be right there. But so what? The thread has taken far more interesting turns since his OP, so it seems a bit obtuse to ignore the best parts to address a self-serving or naive view (which you don't respect much anyway). My point is, read up, follow the discussion, give us comments in line with what has been ferreted out.


So, embrace chaos? Forum moderators are fine with threads in clearly described sections to turn into repositories and trash bins?
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 09:45 pm
@MJA,
MJA wrote:
Sorry to differ Aedes, but a simple truth beyond arguement has been made on this thread many times, It looks simply like this: =
One cannot argue against the moral good right or truth of equality, and that's the proof!
I rest my case.:bigsmile:

=
MJA


On what grounds do you justify your claim that non-human animals are equal to humans?
 
Joe
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 10:07 pm
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles wrote:
So, embrace chaos? Forum moderators are fine with threads in clearly described sections to turn into repositories and trash bins?


haha, I think you'll find that we as a forum are trashy at best and predictable at worst. You'll either adapt or try to change the process. But In my couple of months here, Ive noticed that trying to fix something by pointing it out means you want something from this forum. Understandable, but it will become obvious that its not possible in a true philosophy forum.

There is no point to anything here, and so everything is pointless. Its really enlightening if your ready for it.Smile
 
MJA
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 10:14 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
LOL! I wonder what you are like . . . are you an alien? Come on, fess up. :cool:

Look, all that exists is reality. If humans were not here to interpret, all that exists would still exist.

We humans, as consciousness, look at what exists and give it names, give it interpretations, develop philosophies about it, and so on.

But no matter what we say, what exists remains as it is. Reality is what it is. So there is ONE reality, there is ONE situation of existence.

But there are billions of human consciousnesses trying to interpret and describe and define that which exists; and each human has many, many interpretations of reality . . .zillions!

So there is ONE reality or ONE situation of existence . . .

. . . and then in the realm of consciousness, there are vast numbers of interpretations, descriptions, theories, etc. about that ONE reality.


I don't understand the alien remark, why did you say that?

I am simply and truly an equalitarian and that make me and the Universe equally One. That also makes me a vegetarian for the same true One equal reason. Truth is the highest level view.

So what is your truth Les? Is it only a theory or a faith or a Zillion etc.?
Please share, I'm truly on the same planet as you.
And do we have the same high level view?

=
MJA
 
MJA
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 10:23 pm
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles wrote:
On what grounds do you justify your claim that non-human animals are equal to humans?


The simple truth of equality.
It looks mathematically like this: =
Truth: The Universe is All, Uni is One, One is All, Is equals =, and = is truth.
Animals too!
Got it?
The truth cannot be simplified beyond =, = is.:bigsmile:

=
MJA
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 10:32 pm
@MJA,
What does "The Universe is All" mean? But whether or not the universe is truly One does not tell me if it is or if it is not morally right to beat and slaughter my neighbor's dog and eat it. I highly doubt such a proposition is even supposed to give me such an answer.

And I doubt what you've said is meaningful to anyone who isn't you or intimately acquainted with the special senses you give to your terms. I must ask: Do you wish to convince us or offend us?
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 10:40 pm
@MJA,
Believe in God.

Argument (The simple truth of God).
1. It looks mathematically like this: =
2. God: The Universe is All, Uni is One, One is All, Is equals =, and = is God.
3. God cannot be simplified beyond =, = is.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 10:43 pm
@MJA,
Wait, did you just say?

"The Universe Truth All, Uni Truth One, One Truth All"

Could that mean anything?
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 10:45 pm
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles;54458 wrote:
So, embrace chaos? Forum moderators are fine with threads in clearly described sections to turn into repositories and trash bins?


Do what you please.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 10:46 pm
@MJA,
U > A
U > O
O > A

This isn't even a complete syllogism.

U > A
U > O
---
O > A

Is "One is All" supposed to be your conclusion? That's a fallacy of undistributed middle.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 10:48 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth;54471 wrote:
Do what you please.


I know the latter question was barely grammatical, but I'm sure you could at least hazard a seasoned answer, seeing as how you've been here longer than I have.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 10:12:14