AY has already shared the article on his facebook (followed by asinine comments by his fans who don't understand either side of the argument, as always). Presumably he is still browsing this thread.
https://www.facebook.com/isaacthekind/posts/559382897736392
I actually like the NTT style, it's a shame he isn't willing to modify it. You are right that it would definitely be problematic if NTT became 'the argument for veganism', also comments such as 'animal rights follows logically from human rights' are just absurd (this was his/vegan gains explicit position for the sv3rige debate).
I'll go through the article and give my feedback
Great comments on new #namethetrait video
- DrSinger
- Full Member
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
- Diet: Vegan
- DrSinger
- Full Member
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video
Good burden of proof section, definitely his responsibility to show the argument is valid.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLK2XN9XoAAIbed.jpg:large
You may want to include this as his defense of his argument, and your criticisms of him.
Regarding the issues section:
Part 1:
1. nothing to add
2. agree, cant see any interpretation of P2 that makes it relevant. I would link/refer to his defense of his argument
3. I would quote this somewhere in there (or refer explicitly to P2) 'There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.', so readers know you're referring to ambiguity of the 'us' part.
4. Would consider giving the example of his 'alien invader' hypothetical or referring/lining to the logical consistency meaning section
5. Would explicitly state the argument fails even ignoring this issue. (remember readers won't necessarily read the whole article, sometimes just parts of it)
Part 2:
I'm not sure I agree with what's written here. Exploitation is so ambiguous, and a lot of people would consider human exploitation to be always wrong, even if they make no effort to prevent it. I understand what you're saying in this section but I think it ultimately comes down to how one defines exploitation, exploitation could be taken to mean 'inappropriate lack of consideration of interest' and that what is and isn't exploitation scales with moral value.
Would be interested to see what others think of the section.
I would also add a summary section once the article is complete.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLK2XN9XoAAIbed.jpg:large
You may want to include this as his defense of his argument, and your criticisms of him.
Regarding the issues section:
Part 1:
1. nothing to add
2. agree, cant see any interpretation of P2 that makes it relevant. I would link/refer to his defense of his argument
3. I would quote this somewhere in there (or refer explicitly to P2) 'There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.', so readers know you're referring to ambiguity of the 'us' part.
4. Would consider giving the example of his 'alien invader' hypothetical or referring/lining to the logical consistency meaning section
5. Would explicitly state the argument fails even ignoring this issue. (remember readers won't necessarily read the whole article, sometimes just parts of it)
Part 2:
I'm not sure I agree with what's written here. Exploitation is so ambiguous, and a lot of people would consider human exploitation to be always wrong, even if they make no effort to prevent it. I understand what you're saying in this section but I think it ultimately comes down to how one defines exploitation, exploitation could be taken to mean 'inappropriate lack of consideration of interest' and that what is and isn't exploitation scales with moral value.
Would be interested to see what others think of the section.
I would also add a summary section once the article is complete.
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:07 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video
.brimstoneSalad wrote:Yeah, but that's only claimed in the conclusion... nowhere else in the argument (in premises) does it suggest that would be a contradiction, and there's no mechanism proposed by which the lack of such a trait causes a contradiction.
A conclusion is not the place to add in more premises
Yes I agree that the argument need more premises to even talk about animal moral value, even if the reasons for animal moral value are different than the human moral value ( I was under the assumption that your text was saying that we need to mention the reason of human moral value which is not needed. We just need a connexion between the two.
Good. Even though I really don't care about how the text sounds, I know how sensitive non-vegans are ( mea culpa ).Isaac wholly rejects logic and supplants his own creation to justify his fallacious arguments, and intentional or not, the result is deception.
I am not aware of the situation between you too and probably will need the other side of the story, but this sound childish.brimstoneSalad wrote:Yes, this will be public.
AY broke contact and refuses private discussion on the subject, I can't really send it to him but I'll tweet it and somebody may tell him (despite him having blocked me on twitter for disagreeing with one of his comments).
I'm sorry I can't contribute more on the philosophical side of things, I came here only to propose a formal argument as logic is my expertise.
I'm interested nonetheless so the wiki was a good read for me.
Just curious what are you @ brimstoneSalad @DrSinger and @PhilRisk your arguments for veganism ? Assuming of course you are vegan.
EDIT:
I just went through this post. I'm in awe that not any of the comments try to actually address any issues on the wiki page.DrSinger wrote:AY has already shared the article on his facebook (followed by asinine comments by his fans who don't understand either side of the argument, as always). Presumably he is still browsing this thread.
https://www.facebook.com/isaacthekind/posts/559382897736392
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video
You can find the original thread on twitter in Isaac's tweets (and see how he dishonestly cherry picked a non-argument first comment meant to start Socratic conversation as indicative of the "great comments" I was talking about here).Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:18 am I am not aware of the situation between you too and probably will need the other side of the story, but this sound childish.
https://twitter.com/PhiloVegan/status/920813859857772544
My response was pretty polite, given it was a pretty overt misrepresentation.
He decided that, combined with my not assenting to his "murkage" to be a blockable offense.
I set up the meta-ethics of consequentialism based on the violation of interests, and beyond that they're empirical in nature (the harms that result from the industry, etc.).Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:18 am Just curious what are you @ brimstoneSalad @DrSinger and @PhilRisk your arguments for veganism ? Assuming of course you are vegan.
That's not a surprise.Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:18 am I just went through this post. I'm in awe that not any of the comments try to actually address any issues on the wiki page.
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:07 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video
Hmmm, this person doesn't seem really open to a conversation. Although I do not know how the few hours interacting with him went.brimstoneSalad wrote:You can find the original thread on twitter in Isaac's tweets (and see how he dishonestly cherry picked a non-argument first comment meant to start Socratic conversation as indicative of the "great comments" I was talking about here).
https://twitter.com/PhiloVegan/status/920813859857772544
My response was pretty polite, given it was a pretty overt misrepresentation.
He decided that, combined with my not assenting to his "murkage" to be a blockable offense.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video
Thanks DrSinger!
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#P2_Inconsequential
Does that look good?
If you can think of anything to add in that would be useful to clarify/explain the issue better, please edit the article.
I was thinking about getting exact quotes from some of his videos (And Darren McStravick's stream with him) which would be more relevant, but I haven't had time.
I'm not sure about the possible definition you gave, though. I think exploitation either refers to use, or harmful use (against the interests of that party), but never relates to limited consideration of that harm: that would just be a pragmatic limit on an acceptable level of exploitation.
If the use benefits others but does not benefit the one being used (and the benefit doesn't come back around), and if the one being used is being harmed at all, then that's exploitation.
Alright, I edited it a bit.DrSinger wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:56 am https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLK2XN9XoAAIbed.jpg:large
You may want to include this as his defense of his argument, and your criticisms of him.
[...]
2. agree, cant see any interpretation of P2 that makes it relevant. I would link/refer to his defense of his argument
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#P2_Inconsequential
Does that look good?
If you can think of anything to add in that would be useful to clarify/explain the issue better, please edit the article.
I was thinking about getting exact quotes from some of his videos (And Darren McStravick's stream with him) which would be more relevant, but I haven't had time.
Added in the quote.
Added in example and more explanation. Can you check it?
Clarified the wording around "correction" and added in a note about that.
I think you're probably right... I'm working on rewriting the section. This may take a while.DrSinger wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:56 am I'm not sure I agree with what's written here. Exploitation is so ambiguous, and a lot of people would consider human exploitation to be always wrong, even if they make no effort to prevent it. I understand what you're saying in this section but I think it ultimately comes down to how one defines exploitation, exploitation could be taken to mean 'inappropriate lack of consideration of interest' and that what is and isn't exploitation scales with moral value.
I'm not sure about the possible definition you gave, though. I think exploitation either refers to use, or harmful use (against the interests of that party), but never relates to limited consideration of that harm: that would just be a pragmatic limit on an acceptable level of exploitation.
If the use benefits others but does not benefit the one being used (and the benefit doesn't come back around), and if the one being used is being harmed at all, then that's exploitation.
That would be good.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video
It started out fine, but then he rage-quit when I sent him a long message (in reply to his reply), basically saying he wasn't going to read it and he wasn't going to waste his time talking to me because he charges people for his time and he doesn't have any respect for my intelligence and he doesn't care what I say because he knows he's right and I'm wrong, and the fact that I didn't assent to his "murkage" proves I'm stupid or unreasonable.Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:05 pmHmmm, this person doesn't seem really open to a conversation. Although I do not know how the few hours interacting with him went.brimstoneSalad wrote:You can find the original thread on twitter in Isaac's tweets (and see how he dishonestly cherry picked a non-argument first comment meant to start Socratic conversation as indicative of the "great comments" I was talking about here).
https://twitter.com/PhiloVegan/status/920813859857772544
My response was pretty polite, given it was a pretty overt misrepresentation.
He decided that, combined with my not assenting to his "murkage" to be a blockable offense.
That happened after I posted this thread, which he saw. Maybe he saw my thinking some of these comments were good and wanting to talk about them here on the forum while we were having a private exchange as a betrayal of some kind?
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:07 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video
Did he actually said that ? If so that would be a devastating blow for his followers.he doesn't care what I say because he knows he's right and I'm wrong
I can see that happening. Though he could have also commented here in the forum (maybe he did ?).That happened after I posted this thread, which he saw. Maybe he saw my thinking some of these comments were good and wanting to talk about them here on the forum while we were having a private exchange as a betrayal of some kind?
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video
It was in the context of my saying I'm going to be addressing this and I don't want to misrepresent him, so I wanted to establish what his positions are clearly.Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 pmDid he actually said that ? If so that would be a devastating blow for his followers.he doesn't care what I say because he knows he's right and I'm wrong
He was basically saying he was going to ignore me and I can say whatever I want and he doesn't think it will convince anybody since he's so obviously right. His confidence stems from his absolute faith in the rightness of his position.
He's not on the forum as far as I know.Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 pm I can see that happening. Though he could have also commented here in the forum (maybe he did ?).
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video
I've added quite a bit and rewrote some parts... it's kind of a mess right now, I'll have to figure out how to organize it better.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:37 pmI think you're probably right... I'm working on rewriting the section. This may take a while.DrSinger wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:56 am I'm not sure I agree with what's written here. Exploitation is so ambiguous, and a lot of people would consider human exploitation to be always wrong, even if they make no effort to prevent it. I understand what you're saying in this section but I think it ultimately comes down to how one defines exploitation, exploitation could be taken to mean 'inappropriate lack of consideration of interest' and that what is and isn't exploitation scales with moral value.
Can you give it another read and see if this helps resolve the ambiguity?
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Pt2_P2_Empirically_False