Greetings from England

Vegans and non-vegans alike are welcome.
Post an intro here first to have your account authenticated by a mod, then you'll be able to post anywhere.
Even if you're here to lurk, please drop a short intro post here to let us know you're not a spammer so you aren't accidentally deleted.

Forum rules
Please read the full Forum Rules
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8948
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Greetings from England

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:07 pm

Frank Quasar wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:19 am
Also, out of curiosity, is it possible for Ask Yourself to be a moral universalist, but hold the position that the notion of "good/bad" is subjective to individuals in a subjective moral framework + there are nor moral facts (error theorist).
I don't think so, but you might have to ask @Margaret Hayek on that one. She's trying to get Isaac and I to agree on constructivism, she may know his views better than I do at this point.
Frank Quasar wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:20 am
The only thing that Ask Yourself would preclude is that if a system is logically inconsistent it should be rejected as opposed to the one that is logically consistent.
If he believes that, then he must be agnostic about moral realism unless he can prove that there are two logically consistent moral systems in competition with each other.
Given his arguments about #NTT it seems he has a very narrow view about which system is logically consistent (it's a misunderstanding of double standards vs. actual logical inconsistency, but still).

He's claimed examples like moving everything in the universe toward a fixed point, but that one is easy to deconstruct:
1. Relativity, there IS no fixed point because there's no privileged reference frame.
2. A fixed point relative to you would NOT qualify, because you wouldn't want other people moving things toward the same fixed point relative to themselves (according to the way he answers challenges to #NTT)

If Isaac can prove that there's another system that would be fully logically consistent (and without double standards, because he thinks that's part of it for some reason) then he can prove himself a relativist or error theorist. He's never been able to do this, so by his reasoning he should be forced into minimal moral realism (at least an agnostic on that front, because of the possibility that there's another consistent system out there somewhere).
Frank Quasar wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:19 am
Is there like a slight difference for these kinds of universalists? One could hold that moral propositions reflect facts that are truth apt, but someone like Ask Yourself could reject that and not agree, but in the end they both reject logically inconsistent positions and adhere to positions that ought to be logically consistent.
I don't think so. I don't think he can be consistent about being a universalist without being at least some kind of minimal realist.

There is an odd semantic edge case where you say what is universally/objectively moral is what people each respectively think is. That is, the moral intent interpretation.
If somebody knowingly acts in a way he or she believes is immoral, then that is objectively immoral.
That's a very weak universal claim, though. And it may be meaningless. That's kind of where Kant started. I don't think this is what Isaac is asserting, though.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8948
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:23 pm

Logical Celery wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:49 am
So, to be absolutely clear, the abstract value such as 4 in of itself is not necessarily objective as it is mind-dependent on a subject for evaluation,
I don't think mind dependence/independence means anything. In order to say it does, you'd have to believe in some kind of supernatural dualism.
Ideas in minds are ultimately physical things as information patterns, just like software on a computer. A notion can be objective or subjective.
Logical Celery wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:49 am
the relationship that is used in order to come to that answer is objective in principle, correct? 2 + 2 = 4 -- This relationship makes the value 4 objective irregardless of one's personal feeling/opinion otherwise.
Sure.

Logical Celery wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:49 am
Likewise with morality; the proposition "torturing newborn babies without killing them in a bath of boiling water for prolonged pleasure is wrong" -- This proposition in of itself is not necessarily "objective", it is still dependent on a mind for evaluation, like the abstract 4 value above. However, this proposition becomes objective when we talk about the relationship that it has to a moral system with an objective standard.
I would use a simpler example.

All other things being equal, giving Bob chocolate has a moral value of X
If Bob wants to be given chocolate, that value is positive.
If Bob doesn't want to be given chocolate (maybe's he's allergic, on a diet, etc.) that moral value is negative.

It has nothing to do with your opinion as to whether it's right or wrong to give Bob chocolate, but to do with the fact of the consequences of giving him chocolate which relates to the fact (not opinion) of how he responds to it/if he wants it or not.

This is where the concept of "mind independence" doesn't make any sense and is pretty useless. Morality is a matter of fact external to the actor, and that's what's important, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to do with any minds anywhere. There are material facts of minds, they're not magical.
That kind of "mind-dependence" is true of all psychology, neuroscience, even arguably quantum physics (and basically all science and reality). Are all of those things subjective because they have something to do with the mind?
If not, we have to understand that there are objective facts of mind, and that's what we're after for objectivity; eliminating the influence of opinion of the actor on moral evaluation, not eliminating consideration for minds in entirety (which doesn't make sense in any field of science).

Logical Celery wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:49 am
When you're talking about objectivity you're really talking about the underlining principles that make these relationships hold and thus make them objective, as is the case for math and would also be the case for morality. It shows us what the correct mathematical answer is, and in morality we can determine what the correct moral action would be.
That sounds right.

Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Frank Quasar » Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:04 pm

Well, if you're really interested in reading Ask Yourself's meta-ethical views now, I was peaking over at a chat discussion that Ask Yourself and AVI were having about moral realism. Ask Yourself spoke about his position in text, and you might find it interesting if you want to read, or @NonZeroSum / others can screenshot for you to read.

Some guys called Supplement Dealer and Isengard started off with a couple of links. If you want, I can screenshot them for you to read so you're aware of his position on things. Let me know.

User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master in Training
Posts: 945
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Post by NonZeroSum » Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:53 pm

Frank Quasar wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:04 pm
Well, if you're really interested in reading Ask Yourself's meta-ethical views now, I was peaking over at a chat discussion that Ask Yourself and AVI were having about moral realism. Ask Yourself spoke about his position in text, and you might find it interesting if you want to read, or @NonZeroSum / others can screenshot for you to read.

Some guys called Supplement Dealer and Isengard started off with a couple of links. If you want, I can screenshot them for you to read so you're aware of his position on things. Let me know.
Here you are, figured out some macros to make it easy to copy, paste text ready for forum use:

A Moral Objective: Alex J. O’Conner (Cosmic Skeptic) & Dr. Alex
@Supplement dealer Who are the people that Destiny is speaking to?
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
Avi is gonna turn destiny into a moral realist lol
I have no clue who destiny is talking to, but they’re on the stream
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Hahaha
Oh my
________________________________________
Isengard
The Malpass VS CosmicSkeptic thing is gonna end shortly.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
This is funny
he's still trying to disanalogize them
@Dr. Avi
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Finding a disanalogy between morality and math is an exercise in futility @Needs Platonic Antenna .
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
"We just do tho"
lmfao
HAHah
why does anybody think that's an argument
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
These moral realists are hilarious
"A priori" I just know it
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
I actually didn't realize how funny a position moral realism is till recently
I have known it doesn't make sense for a long time
but I haven't found it actually like legit funny till recently
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
No no, it’s a special faculty of the cognitive mind
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
HAHAHA
you see this one tony

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
image
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Brb adjusting my antenna to tune into the platonic realm...
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
HahahahAHaHAHaHa
I mean
image
You just can't call somethine real
all you can say is that it comports with your axioms
if you redefine real to mean "that which comports with my axioms"
then sure
but there isn't some objective standpoint from which you can say any of our knowledge is real
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
I deny the existence of the physical world
But accept a priori special faculty tho
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Well that's actually just bad in another way
you also don't know the physical world doesn't exist
I think realism about objects is probably true
but it's not defensible
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
"You can't assume logic without assuming it logically"
That was a misstep
That was a misstep
Magic slip of moral realists
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
magic slip
moral realist cinderalla slipper
like
realism is probably true of things that we thing have a substance type existence and not just conceptual
like objects
energy
etc
But even with those things
you can't prove any kind of deep realism
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
Deep realism meaning?
Like concepts?
Non physical entities?
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
realism that states that something is real in a way that isn't just reducible to "true given my axioms"
I would talk about a kind of narrow realism that we all accept
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
"You can't presuppose things because any presupposition would be you presupposing for a reason"
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
like generally
when we say something is real
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
That's what the moral realists are saying on stream now
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
we mean it fits our criteria for existence
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
Following
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
like avi and I would both tell you that my computer is real
in a shallow sense
like real given our assumptions
such as logic
the reliability of our senses
but we can't say the computer is real in a deep sense
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Yup
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
as in
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Real with respect to my axioms
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
in a way that is somehow provably true outside of our axioms
Deep realism is also not needed
I find often times you need to make these philosophical separations
Like with nihilism
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Oh man destiny needs help
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
I have found separating desc and presc nihilism has been extremely useful
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
He's getting rekt by realists left and right
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
and I think that separating shallow and deep realism is also very needed
cause otherwise when you say things aren't real
people strawman you like you're saying that knowledge is useless or something
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Right
Categorize everything
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
I think we just need to be clear about what we mean when we use terms
I hate arguments without clear definitions
________________________________________
Harsh Mugs
get on get on convo is over
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Like what is meant by real
that question basically resolves the issue of realism
so often the answer lies in defining either the terms or the question more clearly
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
That’s fundamental
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
It's funny also cause I rip on concepts like logical relativism
but if we get deep I actually technically am a logical relativist
that's the kind of thing that confuses people
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
You're a logical subjectivist
Not a logical relativist
They're not the same
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
How would you define each
All I mean is that
In a deep sense I think the axioms you choose are relative to the individual
but in the shallow sense I'm saying that "if you choose not to use logic you're basically just an idiot"
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Relativist would say the truth of logic depends on the culture holding each set of logic.
Two contradictory axioms can be true according to relativist
________________________________________
Isengard
http://great-debate-community.wikia.com ... efinitions
^ This makes the distinction simple if you want to read it
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
And they say it's true in the deep sense
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
We're talking about logic not morality isengard
Hmmm
well
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Well you can anaogoze what a relativist would say about logic too
Analogize*
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Logic itself it a internally consistent system that can't contradict itself
but who accepts logic is relative to the individual
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
And you both are anti realists with respect to morality AND mathematics?
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Right but that's not relativism
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
I'm an anti-realist with respect to everything.
________________________________________
Demeeko
fmw I go on a hour long bike ride and discord is still discussing socialism.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
All knowledge is bootstrapped by axioms.
What do you think you're saying when you say logical relativism and logical subjectivism.
Like just describe each in a sentence
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Same difference between moral relativism and moral subjectivism
Moral relativism is a moral realist position. That morality is objectively true and the true statements are determined by the differing cultural values. Therefore each culture is objectively equally correct morally so we can't judge any culture.
That is moral relativism. And it's just incoherent imho.
It's self contradictory
________________________________________
Endyr
what would moral objectivism change if it WERE true? Trying to understand why I should even care lol
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Hmmmm, I don't know if that is how everyone would use the term.
I don't know if it makes a truth claim.
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Stanford!
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Moral Relativism Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint
stanford
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Right
But that is not the same thing as "Within the framework of each system"
A moral relativist says the moral truth is objectively there
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Ummm
I don't think that's necessary
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
It's just the moral value is relative to different standpoints, just like distance is relative to different points.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Hmmm.
I don't think that's necessary.
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Well I don't either
But I'm pretty sure that's what moral relativism is
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
9:29 PM
In principle, the standpoint in question could be narrowed to that of a single individual, in which case, the relativism becomes a form of moral subjectivism
IEP
When I say relativism I mean
Moral statements are true relative to the axioms of the individual or group.
When I talk about subjectivism I'm talking about ontology.
Like the nature of morality.
There are also different types or relativism
Could be descriptive (which you'd have to be mentally disabled to deny)
Could be normative
etc
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Yeah we should break up the categories of relativism
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
So I'm not seeing how I'm using a word wrong here.
________________________________________
FEDOFUTA
im here
ily2 you handicapped fuck
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
What's the difference between relativism and subjectivism?
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
I would think - relative to a given standpoint - dependent upon a subject
They’re not mutually exclusive
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
[The present discussion uses the label “non-objectivism” instead of the simple “subjectivism” since there is an entrenched usage in metaethics for using the latter to denote the thesis that in making a moral judgment one is reporting (as opposed to expressing) one's own mental attitudes (e.g., “Stealing is wrong” means “I disapprove of stealing”). So understood, subjectivism is a kind of non-objectivist theory, but, as we shall see below, there are many other kinds of non-objectivist theory, too.
I'm using subjectivism in constrast to objectivism
So an ontology claim
and I'm using relative in contrast to universal
which is more of an epistemology claim
________________________________________
MEE6BOT
Hey @legalizeweeed, welcome to Ask Yourself Discord. Read through the #rules-and-intro channel before engaging. Enjoy the server!
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
So something could be ontologically subjective, and also be either universal or relative. And something could be ontologically objective, and universal or relative.
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
image
This?
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Ontologically sub + universal = Subjective morality with universal answers to moral questions. Ontologically sub + relative = Subjective morality with particular answers to moral questions. Ontologically objective + universal = Objetive morality generates universal answers. Ontologically objective + relative = Objective morality generates particular answers.
Something like that roughly.
I don't even care much about the terms tho.
All I mean when I say relative is that the truth value of something is realtive to the axioms of the individual.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
So when I say relative, I'm contrasting it with universal. When I say subjective I'm contrasting it with objective.
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Gotcha
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Like I hold a subjectivist universal morality.
I will tell you that people doing FGM are wrong with respect to my system. And that my system is subjective.
If my system were relative tho
I'd have to say or implicitly say that my system bootstraps separate aximos for those people by which they are right.
But it doesn't, my subjective system has 1 set of axioms that apply universally.
So I don't know if I'm using all the standard terminology right, but I think I'm clear enough on what I'm saying.
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Okay, and nownfor truth?
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
And I'm not seeing anything that directly contradict my term usage in standford.
All those answers above were for a subjective system
I don't claim objective knowlege.
I don't believe I know any Truth, I just know truth.
Uncapitalized truth.
As in truth relative to my axioms.

Free William
Nope
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Ok, so within the knowledge you don't hold, is potential the fact that somehow you don't exist.
________________________________________
Free William
I never said we bad access to the objective reality
And what it is
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Ok so you think objective reality exists.
You can't actually prove it.
I think it probably exists also.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
I doubt that a tree existing is contingent on subjects existing.
________________________________________
Free William
Yes, it has to. Because I am experiencing. Even if I am in a simulation, that simulation would exist.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Read above.
Debunked already.
________________________________________
Free William
How so
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
If you're not omniscient it's possible you're wrong about that.
________________________________________
Free William
What, no. Do you not agree that the only thing you can know is your experience?
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Nope, I don't know that.
I used to think it made sense too.
It doesn't.
The reason it doesn't is cause you can't claim total knowledge.
And unless you can, there is a possibility you're wrong by some mechanism you don't currently understand.
________________________________________
Tessa
isaac you wanna make a band? we can prog it out
________________________________________
Free William
You don't need to claim total knowledge to have experience. Experience itself is evidence of experience.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
You're not following.
Read above.
________________________________________
Free William
I am not.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
@Tessa - Link some of your stuff if you want.
________________________________________
Tessa
its all on pornhub because my licks are rated xxx
________________________________________
Free William
Yeah, I just don't see how that follows even. Because whatever that mechanism is then it would be whatever explains my experience.
________________________________________
Tessa
nah lol ill get the soundcloud
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Nope.
Not following at all.
I'll explain one last time.
But if you don't follow I'm not gonna baby step you for the next few hours.
You don't have total knowledge, therefore it's possible your wrong about anything you assert.
End of story.
You can't claim objective knowledge.
Zip, done.
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
@papa I’ll tell you what, earthling Ed fights like a motherfucker. He’ll fight for animals till the day he fucking goes into the grave.
________________________________________
Free William
Is there a standard link or something else related to solipsism that I can read more into this another time? I actually am not following.
Woah wait I am not claiming to have objective knowledge
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
The above paragraph is all you need.
Just think on it.
________________________________________
papa
@Supplement dealer did you watch it all
________________________________________
Free William
I AGREE with that
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Your claim was that objective reality exists.
You can only say that is true with respect to your axioms.
You can't claim to know that in a deep sense.
Again, I think it PROBABLY exists.
But I can't actually demonstrate that in a way that conclusively proves it true.
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
@papa yeah, why?
________________________________________
papa
It was great
________________________________________
Free William
Yes because even if my subjective experience is the only aspect about reality that itself would objectively exist. My subjective experience is an objective fact in of itself.
________________________________________
papa
That guy was frustrating though
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Urrrggg.
Will sometimes talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
I love ya but you don't listen sometimes.
Everything you need to know is above.
I've repeated myself about 5 times.
If you don't get it, I'm sorry.
Maybe @Dr. Avi will continue with you. He understands the foundations of knowledge stuff.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movements, video and writing culture.

PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Activist Journeys YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/y9vwdcj3

Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Frank Quasar » Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:50 am

Haha, this is awesome. Thanks @NonZeroSum, appreciate it.

I should also note that Ask Yourself and Dr. AVI had a debate with a moral realist last night, a philosophical student who is studying this kind of field. He seemed more robust and well-versed about his position, and capable of offering up rebuttal/understanding correct philosophical terminology.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8948
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:04 pm

Ask Yourself wrote:but there isn't some objective standpoint from which you can say any of our knowledge is real[...]
I'm an anti-realist with respect to everything.
Amazing. Just goes to show what I said about irrealists being irrealists about everything when it comes down to it.

Well, everything except his own internal infallibility:
Ask Yourself wrote:Your claim was that objective reality exists.
You can only say that is true with respect to your axioms.
How can you even say it's true with respect to your own axioms? What if you're wrong about that too?

You can't. If you're a radical skeptic like Isaac you have to reject all truth, even those things you reason from your own axioms because you can't know you reasoned correctly or that your axioms *really* imply that.

If he tries to assume his knowledge about his own internal states, then he'd have to admit Free William is right. It's a shame Free William didn't call him out on that, it would be interesting (although maybe very cringey) to see Isaac's mental gymnastics trying to get out of that one. Or he might just ban the guy.
Ask Yourself wrote:You don't have total knowledge, therefore it's possible your wrong about anything you assert.
End of story.
See the double standard there?
Anything you assert... except the implications of your own axioms?

It's also completely ignorant of what science and logic do, but he's said he's a logical relativist too.
Ask Yourself wrote:It's funny also cause I rip on concepts like logical relativism
but if we get deep I actually technically am a logical relativist
Which basically means he can't say one "logic" is better than another, that science is better than religion, or anything.

He can ONLY say what he thinks is useful to him... BUT he could be wrong about that too because he doesn't have total knowledge. :roll:

These people are functionally brain-dead because they've reasoned themselves out of the capacity for rational thought by rejecting the very things thought depends on.

User avatar
cornivore
Full Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:23 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by cornivore » Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:06 pm

Logical Celery wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:08 pm
I may consider trying out a vegan diet in the future, I've began to limit my consumption of animal products gradually in order to make the effect take course overtime, and so far it yields positive results.
I wouldn't recommend trying a raw vegan diet, or a side salad for that matter. Too many people are getting food poisoning from uncooked or frozen fruits, vegetables, and dried spices (especially with raw prepared or precut foods): UK hardest hit in Salmonella outbreak linked to cucumbers
The ECDC warned new outbreak cases may occur with a “high likelihood” that the outbreak strains will re-emerge in early 2019, as seen in the seasonal occurrence of cases in previous years.
From a statement like this, food poisoning would seem similar to the flu, they know it's going to happen and can't prevent it, but you can by avoiding raw produce, as far as the vegan diet would be involved.

More on food safety in the UK here: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/tag/united-kingdom/ and http://www.foodsafetynews.com/tag/uk/

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8948
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:18 am

cornivore wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:06 pm
I wouldn't recommend trying a raw vegan diet, or a side salad for that matter.
Sure, but there's nothing about going vegan that in itself means eating more raw produce than most people do.

User avatar
cornivore
Full Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:23 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by cornivore » Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:48 am

I suppose it's something that those looking into a plant based diet may be unaware of (uncooked produce causing half of the food poisoning on a regular basis), especially as there has been hype about raw veganism and juicing things raw for optimum health (unless the food is contaminated as such, which apparently it often is, and by numerous pathogens). Whether this is news to anyone, it seems there has been as much of it reported this year as ever: 2018 has been a Big, Bad Year for U.S. Foodborne Illnesses (and reports of this happening are worldwide, where one distributor can send contaminated food to hundreds of countries, where it is rebranded and hard to track, or recall before hundreds of people get sick and some die). I just came across the report about this outbreak in the UK, and thought it might be useful info for someone living there (as food safety isn't always in the mainstream news, or when it is, they don't clearly state that cooking produce may be as important as cooking animal based foods, which are more notorious for food poisoning, because they result in more deaths, yet illnesses are caused either way).
Last edited by cornivore on Sun Jul 29, 2018 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Frank Quasar » Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:07 am

@brimstoneSalad

Ask Yourself, AVI and their PhD philosopher friend speak about minimal realism in this stream. They talk about you as well. I think you might want to skip that Parfit video and just watch this instead, there's a lot of interesting material in here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkDK4VCl_dg

I'm like 18 mins in, but from what I remember AY says it really all comes down to/depends on one's definition of "truth" as to whether or not he's on board with the position. So, when we say that a moral proposition has truth value, AY wants to know the definition of "truth" in that case. If it's in respect to our axioms then sure, but if it's something external or beyond (something like that) that then he rejects it.

He's not a realist, nor is he an anti-realist. He thinks these positions make two hard claims, instead, he's a non-realist, essentially a middle-ground.

If we say that moral propositions have truth value in respect to axioms then I think AY may be on board. He also made somewhat of a weird remark where he says that the minimal realist can possible slip in a robust moral realist hard claim of some sort in the stream, which was odd.

He also made a distinction between a "straw-man" that he feels is prevalent. If he were to say that he was a nihilist, for example, he means to say this sort of thing in regards to a descriptive claim. He's a descriptive nihilist in that sense, but in terms of society/structure he would not be a prescriptive nihilist.

Nonetheless, he takes any claim of moral objectivity to be a moral ontology claim, especially in reference to this belief ties to the Stanford definition of "realism", especially the conceptual caveat, and this is why he's on the anti side.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests