quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Then you have to explain why they have a particular right to exist undisturbed or in their natural habitats.You keep begging the question.
Begging the question means you ask a question in such a manner that the assertion you wish to prove is assumed. Asking about our right to deprive them of habitat assumes their right to the habitat, which is really the question at hand.
You are correct on your interpretation of the 'Begging the question' fallacy. However, I do not believe you are correct in the application in this instance. From my point of view you are engaging in a Straw Man fallacy attempting to force me to defend the right of every specie to exist, which I do not believe. I have asked why we should(if we) have the right to destroy species, not if doing so violates some right that they posess.
This has become a contest of who can better interpet their fallacy cheat-sheet. Reynar fucked around with this message on 05-15-2006 at 04:00 PM.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Naimah squealed:
You are correct on your interpretation of the 'Begging the question' fallacy. However, I do not believe you are correct in the application in this instance. From my point of view you are engaging in a Straw Man fallacy attempting to force me to defend the right of every specie to exist, which I do not believe. I have asked why we should(if we) have the right to destroy species, not if doing so violates some right that they posess.
So. . .you're arguing that one doesn't have the right to do something that violates no rights? 
The answer then becomes that people, by definition, have the right to act as they see fit as long as it violates no laws or the rights of others.
The problem, though, is that you still implicitly insist that these species have a right to have habitat or to exist in the first place. If they don't have the right to exist, then there can be nothing wrong with them going exctinct. If they don't have the right to the habitat, then there can be nothing wrong with taking it. Pretty much by definition. You're arguing, even if it is backwards, that they do have a right to these things.
Therefore, you have the burden of proof.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Naimah stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
But why does the ability to do something grant us the right to do it? Screw thier right to exist, why do we have the right to destroy them?
Speaking as the banana's advocate, I would like to thank you for your support. It is only through the dedication of fellow banana enthusiasts, that we have a chance. When the banana's rise to power, you will be rewarded with your own chiquita harem. Vinven D`Slyfox fucked around with this message on 05-15-2006 at 04:06 PM.
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Reynar liberally with Old Spice!
When more than half of everyone's arguement has become about how the other person was improperly using a fallacy, the thread should be locked.This has become a contest of who can better interpet their fallacy cheat-sheet.
Red Herring.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Red Herring.
quote:
Bloodsage wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
So. . .you're arguing that one doesn't have the right to do something that violates no rights?The answer then becomes that people, by definition, have the right to act as they see fit as long as it violates no laws or the rights of others.
The problem, though, is that you still implicitly insist that these species have a right to have habitat or to exist in the first place. If they don't have the right to exist, then there can be nothing wrong with them going exctinct. If they don't have the right to the habitat, then there can be nothing wrong with taking it. Pretty much by definition. You're arguing, even if it is backwards, that they do have a right to these things.
Therefore, you have the burden of proof.
Then I am forced to concede the argument. I see no fashion in which I can argue for the right of every specie to exist as you assert I must do. To do so would be an exercise in gross generlizations that would be easily foiled by their very requirement of be general to include all species. An obvious course of action would be to take the ad Absurdum route claiming that you are proposing that we have the right to destroy all life as it is not possible to make an irrefutable case for the right of life to exist barring its ability to resist external forces.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Oh NO!
Harry Bellefonte's classic will vanish into obscurity, unable to annoy the shit out of future generations! Karnaj fucked around with this message on 05-15-2006 at 04:47 PM.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
The people who make living off of bananas? They'll have to evolve and find something else for their livelihood...
Or go extinct.
quote:
Naimah said:
I may revist this later. I know there is philisophical support for my position, I just don't have the breadth of knowledge to know where it is offhand.
Bloodsage is in the military so obviously he prefers to wipe things out. 
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Naimah gently hums:
I may revist this later. I know there is philisophical support for my position, I just don't have the breadth of knowledge to know where it is offhand.
The only philosophical support is to assert a right for all things to exist, which you then need to justify.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Check out the big brain on Bloodsage!
The only philosophical support is to assert a right for all things to exist, which you then need to justify.
Or that we have a duty to allow things to exist within reason.
You ever watch a hot chick eat a banana? Damn. Just DAMN.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Naimah gently hums:
Or that we have a duty to allow things to exist within reason.
Which is exactly the same thing as saying they have a right to exist.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Bloodsage said this:
Which is exactly the same thing as saying they have a right to exist.
A right is a property of the being, things are generally considered to not have rights. A duty is an obligation of a being to things other then itself. Subtle differance.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Naimah gently hums:
A right is a property of the being, things are generally considered to not have rights. A duty is an obligation of a being to things other then itself. Subtle differance.
Your reasoning is entirely ass-backwards. It's not possible to have a duty toward something that has no rights. It is the right that creates the duty.
Constantly seeking to avoid the underlying issue by begging the question and verbal gymnastics doesn't help your argument.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Robocop:
Your reasoning is entirely ass-backwards. It's not possible to have a duty toward something that has no rights. It is the right that creates the duty.Constantly seeking to avoid the underlying issue by begging the question and verbal gymnastics doesn't help your argument.
A duty extendens from an obligation which may or may not be the result of a right. You're claiming that the perverbial square isn't a rectangle.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Naimah squealed:
A duty extendens from an obligation which may or may not be the result of a right. You're claiming that the perverbial square isn't a rectangle.
Jeebus, this is getting annoying. Just because you have a warm fuzzy emotional attraction to a concept doesn't make it true.
Answer the fucking question, already: what is the source of this mystical duty you claim exists?
You'll find, if you take any time at all to research the subject you're debating, that duties don't exist in the absence of rights. If something doesn't have a right to exist, there can be no duty to preserve it. By definition.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage impressed everyone with:
Jeebus, this is getting annoying. Just because you have a warm fuzzy emotional attraction to a concept doesn't make it true.Answer the fucking question, already: what is the source of this mystical duty you claim exists?
You'll find, if you take any time at all to research the subject you're debating, that duties don't exist in the absence of rights. If something doesn't have a right to exist, there can be no duty to preserve it. By definition.
Let us go back to one of your earlier statements
quote:
Then you have to explain why they have a particular right to exist undisturbed or in their natural habitats.You keep begging the question.
Begging the question means you ask a question in such a manner that the assertion you wish to prove is assumed. Asking about our right to deprive them of habitat assumes their right to the habitat, which is really the question at hand.
So, from what basis is this statement made? That no particular species has any more right to exist than another? Let's go with that, unless, of course, you can produce some reasoning yourself as to why any particular species should exist as opposed to another that does not have this right.
Let us use as an example a human child. If no particular species has any more right to exist that another, why then is there duty from parent to child for care? The child has no more right, by this example, to exist than, say, a banana. In terms of pure value aside from emotional ties, a child is a drain on resources and may never produce any capital on its own. A banana may provide sustenance directly to many different creatures (including humans) and, via marketing, provide other forms of subsistence for entire families. So long as the assertion that no particular species has any more right to exist than another, why should the child receive more regard than the banana?
Apples to oranges you say? Well, they're two very disparate species, yes, but we're discussing the right to exist and the right to a habitat here, which would, of a necessity, require some intrinsic value. A human infant, specifically, has no particular intrinsic value outside of emotional attachment, which is not under discussion here. A banana has nutritive and monetary value. Objectively speaking, the banana has greater value than the infant.
So, the infant has greater potential value? What does that matter? There's no guarantee it won't grow up to be anything but a drain on society. It's relatively certain, however, that a banana will be of some worth so long as it receives nutrients. Given these facts, how can we define which has more right to exist? Logically, the banana should have more right to exist since it is of direct value. The infant is simply the object of a "warm, fuzzy emotional attraction." The banana will be of value so long as the minimal amount of nutrients are provided to it; the infant requires significantly more than simple fertilizing and watering.
It may be concluded logically that the banana is of superior value yet, invariably, the infant will receive far greater precedence. Why is this? Without a burden of proof suggesting that human life should take precedence over the existence of the banana, the assertation must stand that no particular species may take precedence. Why? Because, realistically, it is clear that intrinsic value plays no part in determining the right to exist, leaving only the notion of a "warm, fuzzy emotional attraction."
How should one determine the value of one species over another if not by intrinsic value or by aesthetic value?
Edit: i speel gud Melpominee fucked around with this message on 05-16-2006 at 02:13 AM.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Robocop:
You're begging the question. The real question is, "Why does a particular species have a right to exist?"
I've been going about this wrong. By proving the question that is being begged is meaningless the fallacacy is removed from the discussion. I will attempt to go about it as follows. A car, being a thing much like a plant, has no concious wants or needs and thus lacks the ability to have rights. A car has no right to exist. Lets assume this car belongs to a being who has the right of ownership over this car, which itself still has no rights. If another person were to destroy this car they would be commiting a wrong act in that they would be violating the rights of the owner. The act of destroying the car, a thing with no right to exist just like our species of plants, would be wrong.
Therefore a species does not need a right to exist for it to be wrong to destroy it. Regardless of there not being a specific ownership relationship with any particular species it has been shown that something does not need a right to exist in order for it to be wrong to destroy it and the question being begged has no relevancy.
Do we have the right to deny a species the ability to exist? And if so, why?
quote:
Naimah wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
I've been going about this wrong. By proving the question that is being begged is meaningless the fallacacy is removed from the discussion. I will attempt to go about it as follows. A car, being a thing much like a plant, has no concious wants or needs and thus lacks the ability to have rights. A car has no right to exist. Lets assume this car belongs to a being who has the right of ownership over this car, which itself still has no rights. If another person were to destroy this car they would be commiting a wrong act in that they would be violating the rights of the owner. The act of destroying the car, a thing with no right to exist just like our species of plants, would be wrong.Therefore a species does not need a right to exist for it to be wrong to destroy it. Regardless of there not being a specific ownership relationship with any particular species it has been shown that something does not need a right to exist in order for it to be wrong to destroy it and the question being begged has no relevancy.
Do we have the right to deny a species the ability to exist? And if so, why?
1. Destroying the car violates the owner's rights. If the car didn't belong to anyone, it would not matter if it was destroyed, thus invalidating your argument.
2. As Bloodsage stated prior to this, you have yet to clarify where anyone has any intent of eradicating a species.
Having neither evidence of rights nor evidence of some party with the intent to violate these right, your argument has no leg to stand on and is invalid.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Melpominee wrote this stupid crap:
1. Destroying the car violates the owner's rights. If the car didn't belong to anyone, it would not matter if it was destroyed, thus invalidating your argument.2. As Bloodsage stated prior to this, you have yet to clarify where anyone has any intent of eradicating a species.
Having neither evidence of rights nor evidence of some party with the intent to violate these right, your argument has no leg to stand on and is invalid.
Regardless of if rights are attached to it by another being the car itself has no intrinsic right to exist, which is what Bloodsage is advocating must exist in order for it to be wrong to destroy it. Rights of a thing are not necessary for it to be wrong to destroy it.
Right or wrong is not dependant on intent. It is either justified or not.
Note: This basic concept of moral consideration without rights is outlined in Kenneth Goodpaster: 'On Being Morally Considerable' originally published in the Journal of Philosophy 75 308-325 in 1978. This artical may make commitments that I am not prepared to accept but the basic concept is acceptable to me. So much for there being no support for this position. Naimah fucked around with this message on 05-16-2006 at 03:42 AM.
quote:
Melpominee startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
So, from what basis is this statement made? That no particular species has any more right to exist than another? Let's go with that, unless, of course, you can produce some reasoning yourself as to why any particular species should exist as opposed to another that does not have this right.Let us use as an example a human child. If no particular species has any more right to exist that another, why then is there duty from parent to child for care? The child has no more right, by this example, to exist than, say, a banana. In terms of pure value aside from emotional ties, a child is a drain on resources and may never produce any capital on its own. A banana may provide sustenance directly to many different creatures (including humans) and, via marketing, provide other forms of subsistence for entire families. So long as the assertion that no particular species has any more right to exist than another, why should the child receive more regard than the banana?
Apples to oranges you say? Well, they're two very disparate species, yes, but we're discussing the right to exist and the right to a habitat here, which would, of a necessity, require some intrinsic value. A human infant, specifically, has no particular intrinsic value outside of emotional attachment, which is not under discussion here. A banana has nutritive and monetary value. Objectively speaking, the banana has greater value than the infant.
So, the infant has greater potential value? What does that matter? There's no guarantee it won't grow up to be anything but a drain on society. It's relatively certain, however, that a banana will be of some worth so long as it receives nutrients. Given these facts, how can we define which has more right to exist? Logically, the banana should have more right to exist since it is of direct value. The infant is simply the object of a "warm, fuzzy emotional attraction." The banana will be of value so long as the minimal amount of nutrients are provided to it; the infant requires significantly more than simple fertilizing and watering.
It may be concluded logically that the banana is of superior value yet, invariably, the infant will receive far greater precedence. Why is this? Without a burden of proof suggesting that human life should take precedence over the existence of the banana, the assertation must stand that no particular species may take precedence. Why? Because, realistically, it is clear that intrinsic value plays no part in determining the right to exist, leaving only the notion of a "warm, fuzzy emotional attraction."
How should one determine the value of one species over another if not by intrinsic value or by aesthetic value?
Edit: i speel gud
People have rights just by being born. Plants and animals do not.
Your work and thought probably deserves better than to be shot down in two sentences, but what can I do?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Naimah squealed:
Regardless of if rights are attached to it by another being the car itself has no intrinsic right to exist, which is what Bloodsage is advocating must exist in order for it to be wrong to destroy it. Rights of a thing are not necessary for it to be wrong to destroy it.Right or wrong is not dependant on intent. It is either justified or not.
Note: This basic concept of moral consideration without rights is outlined in Kenneth Goodpaster: 'On Being Morally Considerable' originally published in the Journal of Philosophy 75 308-325 in 1978. This artical may make commitments that I am not prepared to accept but the basic concept is acceptable to me. So much for there being no support for this position.
You are still missing essential points. Even in the case of the car, the would-be evil destroyer you keep harping about has no duty whatsoever to the car. His sole duty is to observe the car's owner's rights.
The point you are missing is that you have yet to posit any rights whatsoever that would be violated by letting a plant or animal species become extinct. You can't say we have a duty to protect something or to avoid doing something unless you can point to an overriding right for that thing to exist, either a priori or by proxy through another's rights.
In short, quit trying to think up bizarre analogies and circumlocutions, and simply tell us where this duty to protect species comes from.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Mortious wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Silliest argument ever.
quote:
Karnaj Model 2000 was programmed to say:
This shit is bananas
Peter fucked around with this message on 05-16-2006 at 11:16 AM.
quote:
This one time, at Bloodsage camp:
People have rights just by being born. Plants and animals do not.Your work and thought probably deserves better than to be shot down in two sentences, but what can I do?
That's just it, though. Why? You were discussing the intrinsic right to exist but, in doing so, you pointed out that aesthetic value, "warm, fuzzy emotional attraction," doesn't not constitute a right to exist. Observable reality shows clearly that objective value, be it monetary or nutritional, has no bearing on the right to exist either in my argument. What defines and determines a human's right to exist simply by being born but does not extend to plants and animals?
Despite having heard this argument being waged for most of my life, I still find it interesting and I really don't know where to stand on it. Certainly we feel that a human life is more valuable and has more right to continue than, say, a banana tree, but I have never understood exactly why. The tree and the human are both living things, both have the potential to produce valuable "fruits." Why does one have more right to exist than the other.
Basically I'm turning your argument around on you. You place the burden of proof on Naimah to produce evidence as to why these trees have some right to exist or, in a more general sense, why any non-human species has said right. I ask you to offer some evidence as to why a human has more right to exist than the tree; Naimah's argument kind of obliquely references this in the discussion of who has a right to destroy another species.
I don't have a personal stake in this as I don't have a position to take, but I find this debate rather interesting.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Melpominee startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
That's just it, though. Why? You were discussing the intrinsic right to exist but, in doing so, you pointed out that aesthetic value, "warm, fuzzy emotional attraction," doesn't not constitute a right to exist. Observable reality shows clearly that objective value, be it monetary or nutritional, has no bearing on the right to exist either in my argument. What defines and determines a human's right to exist simply by being born but does not extend to plants and animals?Despite having heard this argument being waged for most of my life, I still find it interesting and I really don't know where to stand on it. Certainly we feel that a human life is more valuable and has more right to continue than, say, a banana tree, but I have never understood exactly why. The tree and the human are both living things, both have the potential to produce valuable "fruits." Why does one have more right to exist than the other.
Basically I'm turning your argument around on you. You place the burden of proof on Naimah to produce evidence as to why these trees have some right to exist or, in a more general sense, why any non-human species has said right. I ask you to offer some evidence as to why a human has more right to exist than the tree; Naimah's argument kind of obliquely references this in the discussion of who has a right to destroy another species.
I don't have a personal stake in this as I don't have a position to take, but I find this debate rather interesting.
Except that I don't have any burden of proof in asserting a human's right to exist; it's enshrined in about 1000 years of history, as well as minor little places like the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it forms the basis for all Western democracies. It is, in short, the philosophical basis for our civilization.
It is the person making the positive assertion--that all beings have the same right to exist--that has the burden of proof. In short, I don't have to answer, "Why not?" you have to answer, "Why?"
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
This one time, at Bloodsage camp:
Except that I don't have any burden of proof in asserting a human's right to exist; it's enshrined in about 1000 years of history, as well as minor little places like the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it forms the basis for all Western democracies. It is, in short, the philosophical basis for our civilization.It is the person making the positive assertion--that all beings have the same right to exist--that has the burden of proof. In short, I don't have to answer, "Why not?" you have to answer, "Why?"
I don't really understand why philosophy relates...then again, I can't see anything to suggest that this debate is anything but philosophical. I suppose I'll put some thought to this and come back to it after fencing.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Naimah gently hums:
If now ignored my citation of an expert source which provides a logical framework for situations where things have no rights but they are still morally considerable. Address the issue and stop claiming that because I have not given a thing rights I have not addressed your concern. Proving that a question has no meaning to an argument is just a valid way to resolve the conflict as is answering the question. If you refuse to address Moral Considerablity then the argument can go no further due to your refusal to address the points at hand.
Um, "Some guy no one has ever heard of agrees with me," is not an argument.
And I did address your "point," if you'll notice. The car in your example has a right to exist by proxy, since the rights of the owner would be violated by destroying it. Unless you can show some similar right by proxy for plants and animals, you've not got a leg to stand on. After all, it's your example from which the argument derives.
So, unless you have something else, you still need to provide the basis for saying plants and animals have a right to exist, whether that right is innate or by proxy doesn't much matter.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's fortune cookie read:
Um, "Some guy no one has ever heard of agrees with me," is not an argument.And I did address your "point," if you'll notice. The car in your example has a right to exist by proxy, since the rights of the owner would be violated by destroying it. Unless you can show some similar right by proxy for plants and animals, you've not got a leg to stand on. After all, it's your example from which the argument derives.
So, unless you have something else, you still need to provide the basis for saying plants and animals have a right to exist, whether that right is innate or by proxy doesn't much matter.
The entire point is plants are things and thus have no rights, but there are still Moral Considerations that must be made. Just because you have not heard of an expert who was published, republished multiple times, and is cited as an authority for this particular train of thought does not make it the source meaningless.
Moral obligations do not spring soley from rights. If you want to use the principle that moral obligations do spring soley from rights then prove it.
I suggest you great minds discuss.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Suddar squealed:
Bloodsage is worse than a three-year-old girl, wtf.
You're getting fairly annoying lately. Is it just your period, or have you reverted back to emo?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
The other men in the truckstop bathroom didn't find it as funny as I did.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
