Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
unethicalVegan
Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:09 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by unethicalVegan »

NonZeroSum wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:46 am I only caught an hour of Ask Yourself talking over you, and then an hour of the convo in the vegan death squad server. You can listen or read back and give us a synopsis if you like of any useful exchanges:

Ask Yourself vs. Unethical Vegan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHAZn2a8YCA
Thanks for recording the debate! Here are some points


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


10:38 Law of identity is used in set theory (as in the set of integers, or the set of all real numbers). Applying Law of identity to physical objects would mean a bunch implicit things. But AY is a way to butthurt to ever wanna go down that route


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Unable to name a trait, therefore "the trait is unable to name the trait"

If a person is "Unable to name a trait" (17:42 ) this obviously does not mean that the trait is becoming "unable to name the trait." I don't think this needs to be explained. Its obvious AY is trying to do is trying to sneak in with "well now if someone would kill you without naming a trait..." Which is trying to say that the golden rule ("Treat others the way you want to be treated") is a universally true statement. A person can still have the subjective belief that other people should justify actions toward them but not the person itself does not have to justify actions his/her own actions towards others.

I think AY has a serious problem with sneaking in the golden rule everywhere

Also, if a person is unable to name a trait, it doesn't mean that the trait doesn't exist

i.e., For example, let's say we have a person who is color blind staring at two cats. The cats are identical in shape however one cat is black and the other is white. Now, this color blind person is not "able" to name the trait that makes the cat different. Does this still mean that the cats are the same object?

This could mean that you're just bootstrapping moral value for humans "arbitrarily" without naming a trait. But that's another point (AY is too retarded to come this far in the convo). The gist is that person could still accept that humans have moral value and animals don't while not naming any trait (which is not an "absurd" position or a contradictory position).

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
27:00
changing a "trait" a different context
This different context would be that in the future human DNA has changed. The trait in which causes humans to have moral values can depend on context. Hence its fully acceptable to change the trait when the context has changed. Different world contexts would obviously give different truth values to claims.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
29:53
Trying to make a general rule out "suffering=bad

Now the reason why I didn't wanna claim this as true because it all boils down to the context, which AY friend also pointed out. So its kinda ignoring specific contexts in which suffering might be actually be true (i.e., a Just war) hence it would be incorrect to claim that "generally suffering is bad."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

59:00 --- 1:45:00

Here I was making a mistake claiming "if an argument is not sound then it's not valid." I was actually referring to "If an argument does not Semantically entails the conclusion then the argument is not valid." So basically if the premises evaluate to true but the conclusion evaluates to false, THEN the argument is not valid. However I was majorly confusing the terms. Altought this is a complete derail from NTT and ironically this was the only part Isaac uploaded to his youtube channel...
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

from 1:45:00 and onwards

The rest of this convo was just talking about why inferences rules have to be shown for an argument. It was kinda hard to understand since I was kinda lagging in and out (and at that point, I have not slept for more than 24 hours haha due to assignments). Although this segment mainly goes over the idea why claiming that the NTT is valid referencing the inference rule(s) used. This move is quite retarded which has already been discussed.
Last edited by unethicalVegan on Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by carnap »

Debating topics "live" on you-tube and such seems more like a chest beating exercise for young men....rarely is it civil and its just a battle of echos.

Why bother?
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
unethicalVegan
Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:09 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by unethicalVegan »

carnap wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:46 pm Debating topics "live" on you-tube and such seems more like a chest beating exercise for young men....rarely is it civil and its just a battle of echos.

Why bother?
So true. I procrastinated 6 hours all for basically

AY:"retarded to mention 'obvious' implicit premises tho"
AY:"my argument is valid tho"
AY:"Don't have to apply inference rules tho"

Obviously, AY has an ego investment in keeping the NTT exactly the way it is without reformulating it. Although I'm pretty sure people who are interested in seeking deeper knowledge understand can see the problems in the NTT
unethicalVegan
Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:09 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by unethicalVegan »

carnap wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:29 pm Talking about "disproof" is a bit of a misdemeanor, you can either show that the argument presented is invalid (e.g., violates some rule of logic) or the argument is unsound (one of more of the premises is false).
Well, the disproof would show that it's not valid. This would be when the premises are true and the conclusion can still be false.

Here is a disproof of the following argument

P(1) A
P(2) B
______________
C: C

Now by creating a truth table which evaluates all possible truth values for the premises and the conclusion


P(1) P(2) Concl
A B C
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0 ------>>> This is the line which proves that the argument is invalid
1 1 1
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by Lay Vegan »

unethicalVegan wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:42 am Then somebody gave an example which caused the whole "soundness" confusion. Looking at the video, I clearly misspoke and when I said

"If an argument is not sound then the argument is not valid."

This should have been phrased as "If an argument doesn't semantically entail, then the argument is not valid".
Glad to see you correct yourself there.

“If an argument is sound, then it is valid.”

The contrapistive of this statement would be;

“If an argument is not valid, then it is not sound.”

The INVERSE is;

“If an argument is not sound, then it is not valid.”

Which, as you recognized, is a false statement. Even if the premises are false, the conclusion may logically entail.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by carnap »

unethicalVegan wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:42 pm Well, the disproof would show that it's not valid. This would be when the premises are true and the conclusion can still be false.
The point is that "disproof" is a vague common language term that could mean a variety of things so will tend to confuse matters when discussing logic.
unethicalVegan wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:42 pm Here is a disproof of the following argument

P(1) A
P(2) B
______________
C: C
That isn't a "disproof", its a proof that relies on the soundness of propositional logic. The truth table shows that it isn't the case that {A, B } |= C which means that its not the case that {A,B} |- C since propositional logic is sound. You're proving that {A, B} |- C is not the case.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:35 am "_jhc" is the guy saying he got his phD in Philosophy, you can @search for him, then message if you're in the same server. "V for Vegandetta" & "The Philosophy Chat (https://discord.gg/kK8w3N)" would work.
Thanks, I talked to _jhc.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:35 amAskYourself booted everyone out of his voice chat in his server and sent them to "V for Vegandetta" just to see some guy talk to me when I joined, so I'm sure would do it again with you.
Not sure what that means.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:35 am"Debate Colloseum - https://discord.gg/suqs9A7" server with Lox as moderator might work. The two of you and a mod in a private permissions voice channel. Then a period with _jhc and a few other joining in if they want to, then a few more in a question and answer section. Otherwise people are just going to be shouting across saying "holahoax" and "niggers aren't people" and shit.
That sounds great, actually.

I'm pretty sure he would never agree to an actual debate (because all he wants is spectacle in front of his audience), but I would do that. It should be relatively trivial to dismantle his position, even in layman's terms, if there's actual moderation.

I would only argue that the NTT argument as formulated is not sound, and requires alteration of language and/or additional premises. He has too much ego investment to change even one word, unfortunately, but that's what makes it so easy to demonstrate inconsistency.

His Humpty Dumptyism will be apparent in a moderated discussion.
Nightcell001
Junior Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:07 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by Nightcell001 »

unethicalVegan wrote:59:00 --- 1:45:00

Here I was making a mistake claiming "if an argument is not sound then it's not valid." I was actually referring to "If an argument does not Semantically entails the conclusion then the argument is not valid." So basically if the premises evaluate to true but the conclusion evaluates to false, THEN the argument is not valid. However I was majorly confusing the terms. Altought this is a complete derail from NTT and ironically this was the only part Isaac uploaded to his youtube channel...
Hi UnethicalVegan. The video was a battle of egos. You did a major disservice to the work of other in this forum by standing a wrong position. Isaac ego inflated so much that he is ready to take on bigger fishes. I am hoping Philo can expose this fraud in the future.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Nightcell001 wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:07 pm Hi UnethicalVegan. The video was a battle of egos. You did a major disservice to the work of other in this forum by standing a wrong position. Isaac ego inflated so much that he is ready to take on bigger fishes. I am hoping Philo can expose this fraud in the future.
Maybe it'll work out alright in the end. By giving Isaac more confidence, Isaac may be more likely to make the fatal mistake of debating me on neutral ground. He's probably still too cowardly to do it, but maybe (just maybe) this victory he thinks he won will change that?
If there's a mod and he can not shout over or mute me, then he loses his only weapons.
unethicalVegan
Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:09 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by unethicalVegan »

carnap wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:24 pm
unethicalVegan wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:42 pm Well, the disproof would show that it's not valid. This would be when the premises are true and the conclusion can still be false.
The point is that "disproof" is a vague common language term that could mean a variety of things so will tend to confuse matters when discussing logic.
unethicalVegan wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:42 pm Here is a disproof of the following argument

P(1) A
P(2) B
______________
C: C
That isn't a "disproof", its a proof that relies on the soundness of propositional logic. The truth table shows that it isn't the case that {A, B } |= C which means that its not the case that {A,B} |- C since propositional logic is sound. You're proving that {A, B} |- C is not the case.
By "disproof" i mean showing that the argument is not valid.

Nightcell001 wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:07 pm
unethicalVegan wrote:59:00 --- 1:45:00

Here I was making a mistake claiming "if an argument is not sound then it's not valid." I was actually referring to "If an argument does not Semantically entails the conclusion then the argument is not valid." So basically if the premises evaluate to true but the conclusion evaluates to false, THEN the argument is not valid. However, I was majorly confusing the terms. Although this is a complete derail from NTT and ironically this was the only part Isaac uploaded to his youtube channel...
Hi UnethicalVegan. The video was a battle of egos. You did a major disservice to the work of others in this forum by standing a wrong position. Isaac ego inflated so much that he is ready to take on bigger fishes. I am hoping Philo can expose this fraud in the future.
Honestly, Isaac is the type of person that only sees what he wants to see. Out of that 6-hour convo, the only thing he will probably get out of is "ugh this unethical vegan guy thinks if an argument is not sound then its not valid"
I mean I brought up several times (before the video started) that he's claiming validity out of thin air.

ME:"If both your premises are true can your conclusion be false"
AY:"No"
ME:"So you're claiming validity, hence you should show this with a set of inference rule(s)"
AY:"That's retarded, I don't have to show things that are fundamentally true. NTT is as true as the argument All men are mortal.Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal."
ME:"This Socrates example is a valid argument BECAUSE it can be shown that there is an inferences rule that infers the conclusion. The inference rule called "implication elimination" (also known as modus ponens") can be applied in the Socrates example. So again what is the inference rule used in NTT.
AY:"I'm not gonna go down this level of autism.... blah blah blah"

I seriously would not recommend Philo debating AY. Not until AY at least has outgrown puberty
Post Reply