Thanks for recording the debate! Here are some pointsNonZeroSum 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
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.