No more meat?

[New Rogernomics]

There will still be meat, just grown in labs controlled by powerful agricultural corporations like Monsanto.

[Japhari]

Can't we just have more abortions, also steak?

I read this before the article, and I horribly misinterpreted it.

baby burgers

[Sociobiology]

Feelings are not morals.

actually they are,well more precisely morals are feelings/emotions, you're thinking of ethics.

. You don't believe that it is moral to kill newborns because they do not have higher brain functioning because they are humans, after saying that your morals are based on sentience. Why can I not just turn around and say that it should be based on ethnicity?

you can but most people will not agree with you and morality like all psychological constructs is determined more or less by consensus

[Mavorpen]

actually they are,well more precisely morals are feelings/emotions, you're thinking of ethics.

No. Morals are principles that distinguish between right and wrong. You might detonate something be bad by your feelings and have principles that backs up those feelings, but feelings themselves aren't actually morals.

you can but most people will not agree with you and morality like all psychological constructs is determined more or less by consensus

I'm going by his own reasoning. He is claiming that morality concerning other humans is different because we belong to the same species. However, I could simply use this against him and say that it isn't, because I can simply use ethnicity as a basis for morality.

[Norsklow]

No. Morals are principles that distinguish between right and wrong. You might detonate something be bad by your feelings and have principles that backs up those feelings, but feelings themselves aren't actually morals.

That totally depends on your point of view. I reject the [background=]notion [/background]of normative morality. It's nothing but one group trying to impose its values on another.

and wiki-piza-ing for the sake of mutual comprehensibility.

The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."

I reject any appeal to Morality, or Ethics other than in that narrow sense. Unless you persuade that your particular tradition is mine, your ethics or morals are utterly irrelevant to me, just so much hot air, claptrap, baloney and what-else. And the underlined words are merely attempts to say it politely. Privately I might use much more severe terms.

[Mavorpen]

That totally depends on your point of view. I reject the [background=]notion [/background]of normative morality. It's nothing but one group trying to impose its values on another.

and wiki-piza-ing for the sake of mutual comprehensibility.

The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."

I reject any appeal to Morality, or Ethics other than in that narrow sense. Unless you persuade that your particular tradition is mine, your ethics or morals are utterly irrelevant to me, just so much hot air, claptrap, baloney and what-else.

That's nice. I never said morals were objective, so this entire post was rather useless.

[Norsklow]

No it's not. YOU appeal to ethics - don't do that unless you are in your own little conventicle. Cultural Imperialist.

[Mavorpen]

No it's not. YOU appeal to ethics - don't do that unless you are in your own little conventicle. Cultural Imperialist.

I gave it a shot, I really did. This entire time you've made only nonsensical posts, and I give you the benefit of the doubt and respond. You then post something completely unrelated to what I said, and then resort to name-calling.

[Norsklow]

BS. The moment you postulate Perfect Morality and demand that others accept it YOU are engaging in cultural imperialism.

[Mavorpen]

BS. The moment you postulate Perfect Morality and demand that others accept it YOU are engaging in cultural imperialism.

I postulated no such thing. In fact, if I did, I wouldn't be debating.

[Sociobiology]

source for the highlighted?

It's not a bad thing, really.

ye gods the craniometrics is still causing problems.
the study that article is referring to was overturned almost immediately because of faulty methodology, using old form craniometrics the brain is shrinking but that is because it is point to point measurements not volumetric, worse yet they never accounted for the asymmetry in modern human brains, or rather they detected it but did not account for it. modern human brains are unique in being lopsided the right side being markedly larger than the left. the brain did not shrink it twisted.

Neanderthals for instance have symmetric brains AND larger volume, but the frontal lobes and parietal lobes are smaller, better memory poorer reasoning skills poorer awareness.
Cro-Magnon man had larger parietal lobes than its ancestors but the asymmetric developed in fully modern H. sapiens, this can easily be mistaken for shrinkage because the "noise" in point to point measurement data goes through the roof when this happens.

[Norsklow]

You're thinking of biological classifications. We're discussing consciousness classifications.
We are? Why? Consciousness classifications again, hold no weight in morality. Arguing otherwise allows for us to begin arguing whether killing newborns simply because they are not conscious for food is perfectly moral.


And yet, they are still protected. It goes to the immediate family, and they choose whether said person should be taken off of life support. Also, this is a false equivalency, since animals are not brain dead, and the ones we slaughter have feelings.

Underlining by me. You can't use the very words you used without postulating perfect morality.

[Mavorpen]

It's not a bad thing, really.

ye gods the craniometrics is still causing problems.
the study that article is referring to was overturned almost immediately because of faulty methodology, using old form craniometrics the brain is shrinking but that is because it is point to point measurements not volumetric, worse yet they never accounted for the asymmetry in modern human brains, or rather they detected it but did not account for it. modern human brains are unique in being lopsided the right side being markedly larger than the left. the brain did not shrink it twisted.

Neanderthals for instance have symmetric brains AND larger volume, but the frontal lobes and parietal lobes are smaller, better memory poorer reasoning skills poorer awareness.
Cro-Magnon man had larger parietal lobes than its ancestors but the asymmetric developed in fully modern H. sapiens, this can easily be mistaken for shrinkage because the "noise" in point to point measurement data goes through the roof when this happens.

Interesting, because Cambridge apparently says our brains are shrinking, and this is the same year.So I'm not sure how our brains shrinking was immediately discredited. Unless you meant the study itself.

[Mavorpen]

You're thinking of biological classifications. We're discussing consciousness classifications.
We are? Why? Consciousness classifications again, hold no weight in morality. Arguing otherwise allows for us to begin arguing whether killing newborns simply because they are not conscious for food is perfectly moral.


And yet, they are still protected. It goes to the immediate family, and they choose whether said person should be taken off of life support. Also, this is a false equivalency, since animals are not brain dead, and the ones we slaughter have feelings.

Underlining by me. You can't use the very words you used without postulating perfect morality.

Except that was a hypothetical and I was using redutio ad absurdum. So, you're wrong. Again.

[Norsklow]

Except that was a hypothetical and I was using redutio ad absurdum. So, you're wrong. Again.

Non credo quia absurdum

[Meryuma]

There will still be meat, just grown in labs controlled by powerful agricultural corporations like Monsanto.

Depressingly, this is probably how it will go down.

Anyways, can people stop making blanket statements about people being able to survive without meat? It's privileged.

[Sociobiology]

actually they are,well more precisely morals are feelings/emotions, you're thinking of ethics.

No. Morals are principles that distinguish between right and wrong. You might detonate something be bad by your feelings and have principles that backs up those feelings, but feelings themselves aren't actually morals.

no morals are the emotional tagging of a behavior as right or wrong, avoid or encourage, the social guidelines by which we instinctively and reflexively operate.

It has been demonstrated quite well that humans normally justify moral acts only after the fact, rationalization not reason, morals normally operate on a purely emotional level.
Ethics are an attempt to construct a logical moral system, which to function must then be trained until it acts at the emotional level. If it is based on principles it is ethics.

http://www.moralmind.co.uk/

you can but most people will not agree with you and morality like all psychological constructs is determined more or less by consensus

I'm going by his own reasoning. He is claiming that morality concerning other humans is different because we belong to the same species. However, I could simply use this against him and say that it isn't, because I can simply use ethnicity as a basis for morality.

and both are forms of morality, which one is most widely practiced however is not the same.

[Mavorpen]

Except that was a hypothetical and I was using redutio ad absurdum. So, you're wrong. Again.

Non credo quia absurdum

That's nice. I don't care, it wasn't directed to you. Could you for once make a relevant post?

[Sociobiology]

ye gods the craniometrics is still causing problems.
the study that article is referring to was overturned almost immediately because of faulty methodology, using old form craniometrics the brain is shrinking but that is because it is point to point measurements not volumetric, worse yet they never accounted for the asymmetry in modern human brains, or rather they detected it but did not account for it. modern human brains are unique in being lopsided the right side being markedly larger than the left. the brain did not shrink it twisted.

Neanderthals for instance have symmetric brains AND larger volume, but the frontal lobes and parietal lobes are smaller, better memory poorer reasoning skills poorer awareness.
Cro-Magnon man had larger parietal lobes than its ancestors but the asymmetric developed in fully modern H. sapiens, this can easily be mistaken for shrinkage because the "noise" in point to point measurement data goes through the roof when this happens.

Interesting, because Cambridge apparently says our brains are shrinking, and this is the same year.So I'm not sure how our brains shrinking was immediately discredited. Unless you meant the study itself.

you do realize both articles are talking about the exact same study right?

[Sociobiology]

There will still be meat, just grown in labs controlled by powerful agricultural corporations like Monsanto.

Depressingly, this is probably how it will go down.

Anyways, can people stop making blanket statements about people being able to survive without meat? It's privileged.

I agree many non-state societies rely on meat.

[Norsklow]

Non credo quia absurdum

That's nice. I don't care, it wasn't directed to you. Could you for once make a relevant post?

Said by some-one who allows notions of right and wrong to intrude upon a survival issue dependent upon the amount of rainwater falling on the planet?

It's a Jungle issue. There is no right and wrong. There is only Survival. Who will? Who wont? Or will we defeat the technological and environmental constraints?

[Sociobiology]

going to sleep now be back tommorrow

[Mavorpen]

Said by some-one who allows notions of right and wrong to intrude upon a survival issue dependent upon the amount of rainwater falling on the planet?

Alright. I'm done with your nonsensical posts.

[Mavorpen]

Anyways, can people stop making blanket statements about people being able to survive without meat? It's privileged.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure people (I know I did) specified that this applies to the first world.

[Norsklow]

Definitely not a surviving type,methinks.

*munches on another stewed vegetarian*